Drug, Patent and Hype: Quo Vadis Pharma Innovation?

Posted on October 21, 2013 by Tapan Ray

A recent research report reveals, though the pharmaceutical companies in the United States since mid 2000 have spent over US$ 50 billion every year to discover new drugs, they have very rarely been able to invent something, which can be called significant improvement over already existing ones.

As per available reports, from the year 2000 to 2010, the US-FDA, on an average, approved just 24 new drugs per year. This number is a sharp decline from the same of 1990, when on an average 31 new drugs were approved per year.

These studies throw open some important questions to ponder:

What is then the real issue with pharma innovation?
Is it declining quality or quantity (number)?
What impacts the patients more?

Quantity vs quality of innovation:

A recent paper explored whether declining numbers of New Molecular Entities (NMEs), approved in the United States (US) each year, is the best measure of pharmaceutical “innovation.”

Thus, studying in detail the NME approvals in the US during 1987 to 2011, the authors proposed the following three distinct subcategories of NMEs:

First-in-class
Advance-in-class
Addition-to-class

This classification was aimed at providing more nuanced and informative insights into underlying trends.

The paper established that trends in NME approvals were largely driven by ‘Addition-to-class’, or “Me too,” drug approvals. However, the good news is that ‘First-in-class’ approvals remained fairly steady over the study period.

Thus I reckon, there should be much greater focus with higher resource deployments for more of ‘First-in-class’ drugs research and development.

To achieve this objective with requisite wherewithal, there will be a need to drastically cut down massive R&D expenditures on “Me-too” types of so called ‘innovative’ drugs. Such drugs, carrying exorbitant price tags, creating a financial burden to the payers, could perhaps help increasing the number of innovations, but certainly not the quality of innovations to meet important unmet needs of patients in a cost effective manner.

Some facts:

In 2010, the healthcare journal Prescire rated 97 new drugs or new indications. Only 4 of these provided any therapeutic advantage over the available existing drugs. Interestingly, 19 others (1 in 5) were approved despite having more harms than benefits.

According to another analysis, “About 1 in 6 new products had more harms than benefits, while more than half of all new products provided no advantages over existing options.”

Further, a different article published in Nature Reviews indicated, “doctors were more likely to rate drugs more than a decade old as transformative.”

Decline in the quality of innovation:

In this context, Dr Mark Olfson of Columbia University and statistician Steven Marcus of the University of Pennsylvania have reportedly established as follows:

“By the 1980s new drugs were less than four times better; by the 1990s, twice as good, and by the 2000s just 36 percent better than a placebo. Since older drugs were much superior to placebo and newer ones only slightly so, that means older drugs were generally more effective than newer ones.”

While even in earlier years, newer patented drugs on an average used to be 4.5 times more effective, as compared to placebo.

The winds of change?

As a result, under the new ‘Affordable Care Act’ of President Obama, “comparative effectiveness research” by an independent research institute could well conclude that older drugs or even cheaper generic equivalents are better than the high priced patented ones, which create fortunes for the innovator pharmaceutical companies at the cost of patients and payers.

The above initiate in ‘Obamacare’, if and when fructifies, will indeed hit the ‘Me-too’ type of drug innovators, especially in the United States, very hard. Nevertheless, is a music to the ear for the private health insurance companies and the patients at large.

A ray of hope?

‘Comparative drug effectiveness analysis’, as stated above, could eventually lead to replacement of newer high priced ‘me-too’ patented drugs by older relatively low priced generic equivalents, at least, for reimbursements.

This will, no doubt, lead to huge profit erosion of the big pharmaceutical players. Hence, extensive lobbying by industry groups in top gear, against this ‘patient-centric’ proposal, is currently on, .

As the new federal healthcare law will find its roots in America, despite strong opposition from the powerful and influential pharma lobby groups, a ray of hope is now faintly seen in otherwise blatantly exploitative and rather cruel drug pricing environment.

Where hype is the key driver:

Despite enormous hype, being created and spearheaded by the Big pharma, on the ‘essentiality’ of most stringent Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) regime in a country with patent laws blatantly in favor of commercial considerations, to enjoy a monopolistic marketing climate with pricing freedom, breakthrough pharma innovations are now indeed rather difficult to come by, as we shall deliberate below.

Reasons for decline:

Many experts believe that the following reasons, among many others, have attributed to the decline in the quality of pharmaceutical R&D output:

Most important drug discoveries for mankind have already been made or in other words, the low hanging fruits of pharma R&D have already been plucked. Now not so easy and rather difficult drug targets are remaining.

In the last decade, most of pharma R&D efforts were reportedly concentrated mainly in four major disease areas: central nervous system, cancer, cardiovascular and infectious diseases.

There is a need now to focus more on poorly understood and more complex therapeutic areas such as, autoimmune diseases or complex diseases related immune system of the body, to meet greater unmet needs of patients.

Clinical trial volunteers are now more difficult to recruit and treat.

More stringent regulatory requirements for clinical trials with studies using much larger number of patients, making the clinical drug development process very expensive.

Could it be worse for Big Pharma?

The evolving situation, though very early in the day now, has the potential to turn much worse for the big pharma and good for the patients, if some key changes take place.

Many industry analysts, across the world, feel that ‘liberal’ patent laws are responsible for acceptance of minor advances over the existing products as patentable with 20 years of market exclusivity.

Thereafter, another ‘liberal’ minded drug regulatory framework allows the pharma players to market such ‘not-so-innovative patented medicines’ aggressively, enabling them to amass astronomical profits in no time at the cost of patients’ interests and payors’ financial burden , as happened in the United States and many other countries recently.

To avoid such trivial innovations the law and policy makers in the industrialized countries may well ponder as follows:

1. Align the country’s ‘Patents Act’ with similar to what Indian law makers had formulated in 2005 to avoid minor and ‘evergreening’ types of patents under section 3(d) of the Act.

2. The clinical research data must establish that the new drugs offer significantly more tangible benefits to the patients than the existing ones.

Denial of patentability for ‘me-too’ innovations and their subsequent regulatory approvals would significantly reduce the drug treatment cost with virtually no adverse impacts on patients, across the world.

If such measures are taken by the developed countries of the world and also the emerging markets, the Big Pharma would be compelled to change their respective business models, making ailing patients of varying financial status, color and creed central to their respective strategic ideation processes.

Otherwise, it is highly unlikely that anything will change for the patients from what we are all experiencing today, at least in the near to medium term.

A possible pathway:

Highly conflicting interests of Big pharma and the patients, should get resolved sooner than later and that again for the interest of both.

Thus, to find a meaningful and generally acceptable solution to this issue, there is a dire need for a much wider global debate. The deliberations, at the same time, should include possibilities of finding ways to avoid huge wasteful expenditures on pharmaceutical R&D for developing new products that offer no significant benefits to the patients over the existing ones. On the contrary, such products burden them with exorbitant incremental drug treatment costs,

The motions of the debate could well be in the following lines:

1. ‘Should United States amend its patent laws by categorically stating that a mere “discovery” of a “new form” of a “known substance” that does not have properties resulting in significant improvement in clinical efficacy, will not be patentable?

2. Shouldn’t the clinical research data must always establish that the new drugs offer significantly more tangible benefits to the patients than already available cheaper equivalents?

The positive outcome of this global debate, if fructifies, will indeed be considered as a paradigm shift in the new world order for all, hopefully.

Unfathomable reluctance:

Despite all these developments, a recent report indicated that the heads of seventeen industry associations of the United States wrote a letter to President Obama complaining, among others, India’s patents regime. This includes the most powerful, yet equally controversial, pharmaceutical lobby group of America.

The letter alleged that the recent policy decisions in India undermine internationally recognized Intellectual Property (IP) standards, which are “jeopardizing domestic jobs” in America and are unacceptable to them.

Though the details of issues were not highlighted in the letter, One concern it specifically expressed that the defeat of Novartis on the Glivec case that challenged Section 3(d) of the Patents Act of India has raised the bar on what can be considered a true innovation for the grant of patent in India.

Though this judgment of the apex court of India was widely acclaimed even globally, American Trade Association Lobby Groups seem to project exactly the opposite, reportedly, driven solely by profit motives of their members and shorn of patients’ interests

Interestingly, an article published in The New England Journal of Medicine, July 17, 2013 also states as follows:

“A patent law that treats incremental innovation and significant innovation in the same way, encourages companies to prioritize less important research over more important research.”

A diametrically opposite viewpoint:

Another school of thought leaders opine, ‘me too’ innovations will continue to remain alive and well. This will happen, even if such new products are starved of oxygen by ‘the tightening purse strings of the eventual customers’. These innovations are sustained by the stronger imperative to avoid clinical failures and to play relatively safe in the space of expensive R&D investments.

They feel that pharma players will continue to focus on to leaner drug discovery and development models to have healthier late-stage product pipelines of such types. In tandem, by cutting costs even more aggressively, as we witness today, they will find space to keep the level of risk optimal for delivering real innovation, when the time comes.

This type of business model, the experts feel is based on the belief that it is far better to acquire a product with very little innovation ensuring that it can hardly fail to be approved by the regulator. Thereafter, the concerned players may figure out ways of how payors will actually pay for it, rather than focusing primarily on acquiring a genuinely innovative ‘First-in-class’ product and then discover it has ‘feet of clay’.

For example, AstraZeneca reportedly invested a little over US$1 billion in two such products in one month: another LABA combination from Pearl Therapeutics and a prescription ‘Fish Oil’ capsule from Omthera Pharmaceuticals.

Conclusion:

Be that as it may, a large number of experts do opine, especially in the light of the above letter of the American Trade Associations that the verdict of the Honorable Supreme Court of India on the Glivec case, though does not serve the business interests of pharma MNCs, definitely signals the triumph of justice over ruthless patient exploitations. It also vindicates that this particular rule of law, as enacted by the Indian Parliament, is indeed for the best interest of the patients of India at large.

This verdict could well be construed as a huge lesson to learn and implement by other like minded countries, across the world.

Having a glimpse at the pharmaceutical innovations, which are often laced by crafty hypes created by expensive PR Agencies of the pharma lobby groups, the global thought leaders do tend to believe, rather strongly, that Section 3(d) of the Patents Act of India would encourage more ‘First-in-class’ innovations, in the long run, benefiting all.

Such a provision, if implemented by many countries, could also help saving significant wasteful expenditures towards ‘Me-too’ type pharma R&D, favorably impacting billions of lives, across the world.

That said, the question keeps haunting – ‘Sans Hype, Quo Vadis Pharma Innovation?

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.

R&D: Is Indian Pharma Moving Up the Value Chain?

Posted on September 2, 2013 by Tapan Ray

It almost went unnoticed by many, when in the post product patent regime, Ranbaxy launched its first homegrown ‘New Drug’ of India, Synriam, on April 25, 2012, coinciding with the ‘World Malaria Day’. The drug is used in the treatment of plasmodium falciparum malaria affecting adult patients. However, the company has also announced its plans to extend the benefits of Synriam to children in the malaria endemic zones of Asia and Africa.

The new drug is highly efficacious with a cure rate of over 95 percent offering advantages of “compliance and convenience” too. The full course of treatment is one tablet a day for three days costing less than US$ 2.0 to a patient.

Synriam was developed by Ranbaxy in collaboration with the Department of Science and Technology of the Government of India. The project received support from the Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR) and conforms to the recommendations of the World Health Organization (WHO). The R&D cost for this drug was reported to be around US$ 30 million. After its regulatory approval in India, Synriam is now being registered in many other countries of the world.

Close on the heels of the above launch, in June 2013 another pharmaceutical major of India, Zydus Cadilla announced that the company is ready for launch in India its first New Chemical Entity (NCE) for the treatment of diabetic dyslipidemia. The NCE called Lipaglyn has been discovered and developed in India and is getting ready for launch in the global markets too.

The key highlights of Lipaglyn are reportedly as follows:

The first Glitazar to be approved in the world.

The Drug Controller General of India (DCGI) has already approved the drug for launch in India.

Over 80% of all diabetic patients are estimated to be suffering from diabetic dyslipidemia. There are more than 350 million diabetics globally – so the people suffering from diabetic dyslipidemia could be around 300 million.

With 20 discovery research programs under various stages of clinical development, Zydus Cadilla reportedly invests over 7 percent of its turnover in R&D. At the company’s state-of-the-art research facility, the Zydus Research Centre, over 400 research scientists are currently engaged in NCE research alone.

Prior to this in May 14, 2013, the Government of India’s Department of Biotechnology (DBT) and Indian vaccine company Bharat Biotech jointly announced positive results, having excellent safety and efficacy profile in Phase III clinical trials, of an indigenously developed rotavirus vaccine.

The vaccine name Rotavac is considered to be an important scientific breakthrough against rotavirus infections, the most severe and lethal cause of childhood diarrhea, responsible for approximately 100,000 deaths of small children in India each year.

Bharat Biotech has announced a price of US$ 1.00/dose for Rotavac. When approved by the Drug Controller General of India, Rotavac will be a more affordable alternative to the rotavirus vaccines currently available in the Indian market.

It is indeed interesting to note, a number of local Indian companies have started investing in pharmaceutical R&D to move up the industry value chain and are making rapid strides in this direction.

Indian Pharma poised to move-up the value-chain:

Over the past decade or so, India has acquired capabilities and honed skills in several important areas of pharma R&D, like for example:

Cost effective process development
Custom synthesis
Physical and chemical characterization of molecules
Genomics
Bio-pharmaceutics
Toxicology studies
Execution of phase 2 and phase 3 studies

According to a paper titled, “The R&D Scenario in Indian Pharmaceutical Industry” published by Research and Information System for Developing Countries, over 50 NCEs/NMEs of the Indian Companies are currently at different stages of development, as follows:

Company	Compounds	Therapy Areas	Status
Biocon	7	Oncology, Inflammation, Diabetes	Pre-clinical, phase II, III
Wockhardt	2	Anti-infective	Phase I, II
Piramal Healthcare	21	Oncology, Inflammation, Diabetes	Lead selection, Pre-clinical, Phase I, II
Lupin	6	Migraine, TB, Psoriasis, Diabetes, Rheumatoid Arthritis	Pre-clinical, Phase I, II, III
Torrent	1	Diabetic heart failure	Phase I
Dr. Reddy’s Lab	6	Metabolic/Cardiovascular disorders, Psoriasis, migraine	On going, Phase I, II
Glenmark	8	Metabolic/Cardiovascular /Respiratory/Inflammatory /Skin disorders, Anti-platelet, Adjunct to PCI/Acute Coronary Syndrome, Anti-diarrheal, Neuropathic Pain, Skin Disorders, Multiple Sclerosis,	Ongoing, Pre-clinical, Phase I, II, III

R&D collaboration and partnership:

Some of these domestic companies are also entering into licensing agreements with the global players in the R&D space. Some examples are reportedly as follows:

Glenmark has inked licensing deals with Sanofi of France and Forest Laboratories of the United States to develop three of its own patented molecules.

Domestic drug major Biocon has signed an agreement with Bristol Myers Squibb (BMS) for new drug candidates.

Piramal Life Sciences too entered into two risk-reward sharing deals in 2007 with Merck and Eli Lilly, to enrich its research pipeline of drugs.

Jubilant Group partnered with Janssen Pharma of Belgium and AstraZeneca of the United Kingdom for pharma R&D in India, last year.

All these are just indicative collaborative R&D initiatives in the Indian pharmaceutical industry towards harnessing immense growth potential of this area for a win-win business outcome.

The critical mass:

An international study estimated that out of 10,000 molecules synthesized, only 20 reach the preclinical stage, 10 the clinical trials stage and ultimately only one gets regulatory approval for marketing. If one takes this estimate into consideration, the research pipeline of the Indian companies would require to have at least 20 molecules at the pre-clinical stage to be able to launch one innovative product in the market.

Though pharmaceutical R&D investments in India are increasing, still these are not good enough. The Annual Report for 2011-12 of the Department of Pharmaceuticals indicates that investments made by the domestic pharmaceutical companies in R&D registered an increase from 1.34 per cent of sales in 1995 to 4.5 percent in 2010. Similarly, the R&D expenditure for the MNCs in India has increased from 0.77 percent of their net sales in 1995 to 4.01 percent in 2010.

Thus, it is quite clear, both the domestic companies and the MNCs are not spending enough on R&D in India. As a result, at the individual company level, India is yet to garner the critical mass in this important area.

No major R&D investments in India by large MNCs:

According to a report, major foreign players with noteworthy commercial operations in India have spent either nothing or very small amount towards pharmaceutical R&D in the country. The report also mentions that Swiss multinational Novartis, which spent $ 9 billion on R&D in 2012 globally, does not do any R&D in India.

Analogue R&D strategy could throw greater challenges:

For adopting the analogue research strategy, by and large, the Indian pharma players appear to run the additional challenge of proving enhanced clinical efficacy over the known substance to pass the acid test of the Section 3(d) of the Patents Act of India.

Public sector R&D:

In addition to the private sector, research laboratories in the public sector under the Council for Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR) like, Central Drug Research Institute (CDRI), Indian Institute of Chemical Technology (IICT) and National Chemical Laboratory (NCL) have also started contributing to the growth of the Indian pharmaceutical industry.

As McKinsey & company estimated, given adequate thrust, the R&D costs in India could be much lower, only 40 to 60 per cent of the costs incurred in the US. However, in reality R&D investments of the largest global pharma R&D spenders in India are still insignificant, although they have been expressing keenness for Foreign Direct Investments (FDI) mostly in the brownfield pharma sector.

Cost-arbitrage:

Based on available information, global pharma R&D spending is estimated to be over US$ 60 billion. Taking the cost arbitrage of India into account, the global R&D spend at Indian prices comes to around US$ 24 billion. To achieve even 5 percent of this total expenditure, India should have invested by now around US$ 1.2 billion on the pharmaceutical R&D alone. Unfortunately that has not been achieved just yet, as discussed above.

Areas of cost-arbitrage:

A survey done by the Boston Consulting Group (BCG) in 2011 with the senior executives from the American and European pharmaceutical companies, highlights the following areas of perceived R&D cost arbitrage in India:

Areas	% Respondents
Low overall cost	73
Access to patient pool	70
Data management/Informatics	55
Infrastructure set up	52
Talent	48
Capabilities in new TA	15

That said, India should realize that the current cost arbitrage of the country is not sustainable on a longer-term basis. Thus, to ‘make hay while the sun shines’ and harness its competitive edge in this part of the world, the country should take proactive steps to attract both domestic as well as Foreign Direct Investments (FDI) in R&D with appropriate policy measures and fiscal incentives.

Simultaneously, aggressive capacity building initiatives in the R&D space, regulatory reforms based on the longer term need of the country and intensive scientific education and training would play critical role to establish India as an attractive global hub in this part of the world to discover and develop newer medicines for all.

Funding:

Accessing the world markets is the greatest opportunity in the entire process of globalization and the funds available abroad could play an important role to boost R&D in India. Inadequacy of funds in the Indian pharmaceutical R&D space is now one of the greatest concerns for the country.

The various ways of funding R&D could be considered as follows:

Self-financing Research: This is based on:

“CSIR Model”: Recover research costs through commercialization/ collaboration with industries to fund research projects.
“Dr Reddy’s Lab / Glenmark Model”: Recover research costs by selling lead compounds without taking through to development.

Overseas Funding: By way of joint R&D ventures with overseas collaborators, seeking grants from overseas health foundations, earnings from contract research as also from clinical development and transfer of aborted leads and collaborative projects on ‘Orphan Drugs’.

Venture Capital & Equity Market: This could be both via ‘Private Venture Capital Funds’ and ‘Special Government Institutions’. If regulations permit, foreign venture funds may also wish to participate in such initiatives. Venture Capital and Equity Financing could emerge as important sources of finance once track record is demonstrated and ‘early wins’ are recorded.

Fiscal & Non-Fiscal Support: Should also be valuable in early stages of R&D, for which a variety of schemes are possible as follows:

Customs Duty Concessions: For Imports of specialized equipment, e.g. high throughput screening equipment, equipment for combinatorial chemistry, special analytical tools, specialized pilot plants, etc.
Income tax concessions (weighted tax deductibility): For both in-house and sponsored research programs.
Soft loans: For financing approved R&D projects from the Government financial institutions / banks.
Tax holidays: Deferrals, loans on earnings from R&D.
Government funding: Government grants though available, tend to be small and typically targeted to government institutions or research bodies. There is very little government support for private sector R&D as on date.

All these schemes need to be simple and hassle free and the eligibility criteria must be stringent to prevent any possible misuse.

Patent infrastructure:

Overall Indian patent infrastructure needs to be strengthened, among others, in the following areas:

Enhancement of patent literacy both in legal and scientific communities, who must be taught how to read, write and file a probe.

Making available appropriate ‘Search Engines’ to Indian scientists to facilitate worldwide patent searches.

Creating world class Indian Patent Offices (IPOs) where the examination skills and resources will need considerable enhancement.

‘Advisory Services’ on patents to Indian scientists to help filing patents in other countries could play an important role.

Creating R&D ecosystem:

Knowledge and learning need to be upgraded through the universities and specialist centers of learning within India.

Science and Technological achievements should be recognized and rewarded through financial grants and future funding should be linked to scientific achievements.

Indian scientists working abroad are now inclined to return to India or network with laboratories in India. This trend should be effectively leveraged.

Universities to play a critical role:

Most of Indian raw scientific talents go abroad to pursue higher studies. International Schools of Science like Stanford or Rutgers should be encouraged to set up schools in India, just like Kellogg’s and Wharton who have set up Business Schools. It has, however, been reported that the Government of India is actively looking into this matter.

‘Open Innovation’ Model:

As the name suggest, ‘Open Innovation’ or the ‘Open Source Drug Discovery (OSDD)’ is an open source code model of discovering a New Chemical Entity (NCE) or a New Molecular Entity (NME). In this model all data generated related to the discovery research will be available in the open for collaborative inputs. In ‘Open Innovation’, the key component is the supportive pathway of its information network, which is driven by three key parameters of open development, open access and open source.

Council of Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR) of India has adopted OSDD to discover more effective anti-tubercular medicines.

Insignificant R&D investment in Asia-Pacific Region:

Available data indicate that 85 percent of the medicines produced by the global pharmaceutical industry originate from North America, Europe, Japan and some from Latin America and the developed nations hold 97 percent of the total pharmaceutical patents worldwide.

MedTRACK reveals that just 15 percent of all new drug development is taking place in Asia-Pacific region, including China, despite the largest global growth potential of the region.

This situation is not expected to change significantly in the near future for obvious reasons. The head start that the western world and Japan enjoy in this space of the global pharmaceutical industry would continue to benefit those countries for some more time.

Some points to ponder:

It is essential to have balanced laws and policies, offering equitable advantage for innovation to all stakeholders, including patients.

Trade policy is another important ingredient, any imbalance of which can either reinforce or retard R&D efforts.

Empirical evidence across the globe has demonstrated that a well-balanced patent regime would encourage the inflow of technology, stimulate R&D, benefit both the national and the global pharmaceutical sectors and most importantly improve the healthcare system, in the long run.

The Government, academia, scientific fraternity and the pharmaceutical Industry need to get engaged in various relevant Public Private Partnership (PPP) arrangements for R&D to ensure wider access to newer and better medicines in the country, providing much needed stimulus to the public health interest of the nation.

Conclusion:

R&D initiatives, though very important for most of the industries, are the lifeblood for the pharmaceutical sector, across the globe, to meet the unmet needs of the patients. Thus, quite rightly, the pharmaceutical Industry is considered to be the ‘lifeline’ for any nation in the battle against diseases of all types.

While the common man expects newer and better medicines at affordable prices, the pharmaceutical industry has to battle with burgeoning R&D costs, high risks and increasingly long period of time to take a drug from the ‘mind to market’, mainly due to stringent regulatory requirements. There is an urgent need to strike a right balance between the two.

In this context, it is indeed a proud moment for India, when with the launch of its home grown new products, Synriam of Ranbaxy and Lipaglyn of Zydus Cadilla or Rotavac Vaccine of Bharat Biotech translate a common man’s dream of affordable new medicines into reality and set examples for others to emulate.

Thus, just within seven years from the beginning of the new product patent regime in India, stories like Synriam, Lipaglyn, Rotavac or the R&D pipeline of over 50 NCEs/NMEs prompt resurfacing the key unavoidable query yet again:

Has Indian pharma started catching-up with the process of new drug discovery, after decades of hibernation, to move up the industry ‘Value Chain’?

By: Tapan J. Ray

Transparency in Drug Trial Data: Thwarted by Lobbyists or Embroiled in Controversy?

Posted on August 5, 2013 by Tapan Ray

Based on a leaked letter from overseas pharma industry bodies, a leading international daily in late July 2013 reported:

“Big pharma mobilizing patients in battle over drugs trials data.”

Some experts consider it as a poignant, if not a bizarre moment in the history of drugs development, keeping patients’ interest in mind. However, the concerned trade bodies could well term it as a business savvy strategy to maintain sanctity of ‘Data Exclusivity’ in real sense.

That said, it is important for the stakeholders to figure out where exactly does this strategy stand between the larger issue of patients’ drug safety and efficacy concerns and the commercial interest of the innovator companies to grow their business.

Lack of transparency in drug trials data and consequences:

Outside pharmaceutical marketing, some of the biggest scandals in the drug industry have been alleged hiding of data related to negative findings in drug Clinical Trials (CTs) by the innovator companies.

Many stakeholders have already expressed their uneasiness on this wide spread allegation that research based pharmaceutical companies publish just a fraction of their CT data and keep much of the drug safety related information to themselves. Not too distant withdrawals of blockbuster drugs like Vioxx (Merck) and Avandia (GSK) will vindicate this point.

Examples of global withdrawals of drugs, including blockbuster ones, available from various publications, are as follows.

Brand	Company	Indication	Year of Ban/Withdrawal	Reason
Vioxx	Merck	Anti Inflammatory	2004	Increase cardiovascular risk
Bextra	Pfizer	Anti Inflammatory	2005	Heart attack and stroke
Prexige	Novartis	Anti Inflammatory	2007	Hepatotoxicity
Mylotarg	Wyeth	Acute Myelogenous Leukemia	2010	Increased patient death/No added benefit over conventional cancer therapies
Avandia	GSK	Diabetes	2010	Increased cardiovascular risk
Reductil	Abbott	Exogenous Obesity	2010	Increased cardiovascular risk
Paradex	Eli Lilly	Analgesic, Antitussive and Local Anaesthetic	2010	Fatal overdoses and heart arrhythmias
Xigris	Eli Lilly	Anti-Thrombotic, Anti-Inflammatory, and Profibrinolytic	2011	Questionable efficacy for the treatment of sepsis

A recent example:

A recent report indicates that Japan (Tokyo) based Jikei University School of Medicine plans to withdraw a paper on the hypertension drug Diovan of Novartis from the prestigious British Medical Journal (BMJ) due to “data manipulation,” suggesting the drug could help treating other ailments.

The report also indicates that an investigative panel formed by the university to look into the allegations of ‘rigged data’ for Diovan concluded that the results were cooked.

The decision of the Japanese University to withdraw this paper is expected to hurt the reputation of Novartis Pharma AG and at the same time raise ethical concerns about the company’s behavior concerning its best-selling hypertension drug, the report says.

Drug regulators contemplating remedial measures:

Now being cognizant about this practice, some drug regulators in the developed world have exhibited their keenness to disband such practices. These ‘gatekeepers’ of drug efficacy and safety are now contemplating to get the entire published CT data reanalyzed by the independent experts to have a tight leash on selective claims by the concerned pharma companies.

A review reportedly estimates that only half of all CTs were published in full and that positive results are twice as likely to be published than negative ones.

Recently the European Medicines Agency (EMA) has published a draft report for public consideration on greater openness of CT data. As stated above, this proposal allows independent experts to conduct a detail analysis on the safety and effectiveness of new drugs.

Mobilizing patients to thwart transparency?

Interestingly, as stated in the beginning, it has recently been reported that to thwart the above move of the drug regulator in favor of patients’ interest:

“The pharmaceutical industry has mobilized an army of patient groups to lobby against plans to force companies to publish secret documents on drugs trials.”

The same report highlights that two large overseas trade associations had worked out a grand strategy, which is initially targeted at Europe. This is for the obvious reason that the EMA wants to publish all of the clinical study reports that drug companies have filed, and where negotiations around the CT directive could force drug companies to publish all CT results in a public database.

Embroiled in controversy:

It has also been reported simultaneously, “Some who oppose full disclosure of data fear that publishing the information could reveal trade secrets, put patient privacy at risk, and be distorted by scientists’ own conflicts of interest.”

Pharmaceutical trade associations in the west strongly argue in favor of the need of innovator companies to keep most of CT data proprietary for competitive reasons. They reiterate that companies would never invest so much of time and money for new drug development, if someone could easily copy the innovative work during the patent life of the product.

However, the report also states, “While many of these concerns are valid, critics say they can be addressed, and that openness is far more important for patients’ drug safety reasons.“

Addressing the concerns:

To address the above concerns the EMA has reportedly separated clinical data into three categories:

Commercially confidential information.

Open-access data that doesn’t contain patients’ personal information.

Controlled-access data that will only be granted after the requester has fulfilled a number of requirements, including signing of a data-sharing agreement.

However experts do also reiterate, “Risks regarding data privacy and irresponsible use cannot be totally eliminated, and it will be a challenge to accommodate diverse expectations across the scientific and medical community. However, the opportunity to benefit the health of individuals and the public must outweigh these concerns.”

Some laudable responses:

Amidst mega attempts to thwart the move of EMA towards CT data transparency surreptitiously, there are some refreshingly good examples in this area, quite rare though, as follows:

As revealed by media, GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) has recently announced that it would share detailed data from all global clinical trials conducted since 2007, which was later extended to all products since 2000. This means sharing more than 1,000 CTs involving more than 90 drugs. More recently, to further increase transparency in how it reports drug-study results, GSK reportedly has decided to disclose more individual patient data from its CTs. GSK has also announced that qualified researchers can request access to findings on individual patients whose identities are concealed and confidentiality protected.The company would double the number of studies to 400 available by end 2013 to researchers seeking data of approved medicines and of therapies that have been terminated from development.

Recently Canada reportedly announced the launch of Canadian Government’s new public database of Health Canada-authorized drug CTs. It is believed that providing access to a central database of clinical trials is an initial step that will help fill an existing information gap as the government works to further increase transparency around CTs.

The well-known British Medical Journal (BMJ) in one of its editorials has already announced, “BMJ will require authors to commit to supplying anonymised patient level data on reasonable request from 2013.”

All these are indeed laudable initiatives in terms of ensuring long term drug safety and efficacy for the patients.

Conclusion:

It is quite refreshing to note that a new paradigm is emerging in the arena of CT data transparency, for long-term health interest of patients, despite strong resistance from powerful pharmaceutical trade bodies, as reported in the international media. This paradigm shift is apparently being spearheaded by Europe and Canada among the countries, the global pharma major GSK and the medical Journal BMJ.

A doubt still keeps lingering on whether or not independent expert panels will indeed be given access to relevant CT data for meaningful impartial reviews of new drugs, as the issue, in all probability, would increasingly be made to get embroiled in further controversy.

Moreover, if the innovator companies’ often repeated public stand – “patients’ interest for drug efficacy and safety is supreme” is taken in its face value, the veiled attempt of thwarting transparency of CT Data, with an utterly bizarre strategy, by the lobbyists of the same ‘patient caring’ constituent, can indeed be construed as a poignant moment, now frozen in time, in the history of drug development for mankind.

Be that as it may, to resolve this problem meaningfully and decisively, I reckon, a middle path needs to be carefully charted out between reported thwarting moves by pharma lobbyists and the embroiled controversy on the burning issue.

Thus, the final critical point to ponder:

Would the commerce-driven and cost-intensive pharma innovation also not be in jeopardy, affecting patients’ interest too, if the genuine concerns of the innovator companies over ‘CT Data Protection’ are totally wished away?

By: Tapan J. Ray

Balancing IPR with Public Health Interest: Brickbats, Power Play and Bouquets

Posted on July 1, 2013 by Tapan Ray

It is now a widely accepted dictum that Intellectual Property Rights (IPR), especially pharma patents, help fostering innovation and is critical in meeting unmet needs of the patients.

However, the moot question still remains, what type pharmaceutical invention, should deserve market exclusivity or monopoly with overall freedom in pricing, keeping larger public health interest in mind.

In line with this thinking, for quite sometime a raging global debate has brought to the fore that there are quite a large number of patents on drug variants that offer not very significant value to the patients over the mother molecules, yet as expensive, if not more than the original ones. In common parlance these types of inventions are considered as ‘trivial incremental innovations’ and described as attempts to ‘evergreening’ the patents.

The terminology ‘evergreening‘ usually ‘refers to a strategy employed by many pharmaceutical companies to extend their market monopoly by slightly changing the existing molecules and obtaining new patents to continue to enjoy market exclusivity and pricing freedom, which otherwise would not have been possible.

Path breaking or jaw-drooping ‘W-O-W’ types of innovations are not so many. Thus most of the patented drugs launched globally over the last several decades are indeed some sort of ‘me-too drugs’ and generally considered as ‘low hanging fruits’ of R&D, not being able to offer significantly greater value to patients than already exiting ones. Many of these drugs have also achieved blockbuster status for the concerned companies, backed by high voltage marketing over a reasonably long period of time. It is understandable, therefore, that from pure business perspective why serious global efforts are being made to push the same contentious system in India too.

Example of some of these molecules (not necessarily in the written order), are as follows:

Cemetidine – Ranitidine – Famotidine – Nizatidine – Roxatidine (to treat Acid-peptic disease)

Simvastatin – Pravastatin – Lovastatin – Pitavastatin – Atorvastatin – Fluvastatin – Rosuvastatin (to treat blood lipid disorder)

Captopril – Enalepril – Lisinopril – Fosinopril – Benzapril – Perindopril – Ramipiril – Quinalapril – Zofenopril (Anti-hypertensives)

However, pharmaceutical companies do argue that such ‘incremental innovations’ are the bedrock for growth of the pharmaceutical industry and are essential to continue to fund pharmaceutical research and development.

An interesting paper:

A paper titled, “Pharmaceutical Innovation, Incremental Patenting and Compulsory Licensing” by Carlos M. Correa argued as follows:

Despite decline in the discovery of New Chemical Entities (NCEs) for pharmaceutical use, there has been significant proliferation of patents on products and processes that cover minor, incremental innovations.

A study conducted in five developing countries – Argentina, Brazil, Colombia, India and South Africa has:

Evidenced a significant proliferation of ‘ever-greening’ pharmaceutical patents that can block generic competition and thereby limit patients’ access to medicines.
Found that both the nature of pharmaceutical learning and innovation and the interest of public health are best served in a framework where rigorous standards of inventive step are used to grant patents.
Suggested that with the application of well-defined patentability standards, governments could avoid spending the political capital necessary to grant and sustain compulsory licenses/government use.
Commented, if patent applications were correctly scrutinized, there would be no need to have recourse to CL measures.

A remarkable similarity with the Indian Patents Act:

The findings of the above study have a striking similarity with the Indian Patents Act. As per this Act, to be eligible for grant of patents in India, the pharmaceutical products must pass the ‘two-step’ acid test of:

Following the inventive step: Defined under Section 2(ja) of the Patents Act as follows:

“Inventive step” means a feature of an invention that involves technical advance as compared to the existing knowledge or having economic significance or both and that makes the invention not obvious to a person skilled in the art.

Passing scrutiny of Section 3(d) of the law: It categorically states, inventions that are a mere “discovery” of a “new form” of a “known substance” and do not result in increased efficacy of that substance are not patentable.

Supreme Court of India clarifies it:

The Honorable Supreme Court of India in page 90 of its its landmark Glivec judgement has clearly pronounced that all ‘incremental innovations’ may not be trivial or frivolous in nature. However, only those ‘incremental innovations’, which will satisfy the requirements of both the above Sections of the Act, wherever applicable, will be eligible for grant of patents in India.

An opposite view:

Another paper presents a different view altogether. It states that incremental improvements on existing drugs have great relevance to overall increases in the quality of healthcare.

With the progress of the pharmaceutical industry, such drugs have helped the physicians to treat diverse group of patients. They also represent advances in safety, efficacy along with newer dosing options significantly increasing patient compliance.

The paper claims that ‘even from an economic standpoint, expanding drug classes represent the possibility of lower drug prices as competition between manufacturers is increased’. It states that any policy aimed at curbing incremental innovation will ultimately lead to a reduction in the overall quality of existing drug classes and may ultimately curb the creation of novel drugs.

Pricing:

Experts, on the other hand, argue, if patents are granted to such ‘incremental innovations’ at all, their prices need to be determined by quantifying ‘Incremental Value’ that patients will derive out of these inventions as compared to the generic versions of respective original molecules.

Use of such drugs may lead to wasteful expenditure:

A large majority of stakeholders also highlight, though many of such drugs will have cheaper or generic alternatives, physicians are persuaded by the pharma players to prescribe higher cost patented medicines with the help of expensive avoidable marketing tools, leading to wasteful expenditure for all. The issue of affordability for these drugs is also being raised, especially, in the Indian context.

The ‘2012 Express Scripts Canada Drug Trend Report’ unfolded that the use of higher-cost medications without offering additional patient benefits resulted in waste of $3.9 billion annually in Canada.

Another recent Geneva-based study concluded as follows:

“Evergreening strategies for follow-on drugs contribute to overall healthcare costs. It also implies that policies that encourage prescription of generic drugs could induce saving on healthcare expenditure. Healthcare providers and policymakers should be aware of the impact of evergreening strategies on overall healthcare costs.”

Some other studies reportedly revealed, “Medicines sold in France are 30 times more expensive than what it costs pharmaceutical companies pay to manufacture them.” Industry observers opine, if that is happening in France what about India? Quoting experts the same report comments, “If pharmaceutical companies are forced to follow moral and human values, it could save the tax payer at least 10 billion euros, an amount which could fill up the deficit of the national health care system.”

Yet another article questioned, “What if a physician is paid speaking or consulting fees by a drug maker and then prescribes its medicine, even if there is no added benefit compared with cheaper alternatives?”

More debate:

According to a paper titled, ‘Patented Drug Extension Strategies on Healthcare Spending: A Cost-Evaluation Analysis’ published by PLOS Medicine, European public health experts estimate that pharmaceutical companies have developed “evergreening” strategies to compete with generic medication after patent termination. These are usually slightly modified versions of the existing drugs.

Following are some brands, which were taken as examples for evergreening:

S.No.	Evergreen	Medical Condition	Original Brand
1.	Levocetirizine (Vozet)	Allergies	Cetirizine (Zyrtec)
2.	Escitalopram (Lexapro)	Depression	Citalopram (Celexa)
3.	Esomeprazole (Nexium)	Acid reflux	Omeprazole (Prilosec)
4.	Desloratadine (Clarinex)	Allergies	Loratadine (Claritan)
5.	Zolpidem Extended Release (Ambien CR)	Insomnia	Zolpidem (Ambien)
6.	Pregabalin (Lyrica)	Seizures	Gabapentin (Neurotonin)

Source: Medical Daily, June 4, 2013

In this study, the researchers calculated that evergreening – where pharmaceutical companies slightly modify a drug molecule to extend its patent, had cost an extra 30 million euros to the healthcare system in Geneva between 2000 and 2008. The authors argue that ‘evergreening’ strategies, “more euphemistically called as ‘life cycle management’ are sometimes questionable benefit to society.”

As the paper highlights, in this scenario the companies concerned rely on brand equity of the original molecule with newer and more innovative marketing campaigns to generate more prescriptions and incurring in that process expenses nearly twice as much on marketing than on research and development.

Brickbats:

In this context, recently a lawmaker rom America reportedly almost lambasted India as follows:

“I’m very concerned with the deterioration in the environment for protection of US intellectual property rights and innovation in India. The government of India continues to take actions that make it very difficult for US innovative pharmaceutical companies to secure and enforce their patents in India.“

On this, the Indian experts comment, if the situation is so bad in India, why doesn’t America get this dispute sorted out by lodging a formal complaint against India in the WTO, just as what India contemplated to do, when consignments of generic drugs of Indian manufacturers were confiscated at the European ports, alleging those are counterfeit medicines.

Yet another recent news item highlighted a “concerted effort, which involves letters from US corporations and business groups to the president, testimony by Obama administration officials before Congress, and lawmakers’ own critiques, came ahead of US secretary of state John Kerry’s trip to India later this month (has already taken place by now) for the annual strategic dialogue, which will precede Prime Minister Manmohan Singh’s visit to Washington DC in September.”

The report stated, the above letter complained that over the last year, “courts and policymakers in India have engaged in a persistent pattern of discrimination designed to benefit India’s business community at the expense of American jobs … Administrative and court rulings have repeatedly ignored internationally recognized rights — imposing arbitrary marketing restrictions on medical devices and denying, breaking, or revoking patents for nearly a dozen lifesaving medications.”  

At a recent Congressional hearing of the United States, 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.”

Indian experts respond to these allegations by saying, patent disputes, patent challenges, revocation of patents, compulsory licensing etc. are all following a well-articulated judicial process of the country, where Indian government has hardly any role to play or intervene. American government and lawmakers are also expected to respect the rule of law in all such cases instead of trying to denigrate the Indian system.

The Power Play:

This short video clipping captures the Power Play in America on this matter.

The Government of India responds:

Ministry of Commerce and Industries of India reportedly countered the allegations of the United States over patents to the US Trade Representive arguing that the Indian IPR regime is fully TRIPS-compliant and Indian Patents Act “encourages genuine innovation by discouraging trivial, frivolous innovation, which leads to evergreening”.

Countries adopting the Indian model:

The above report also highlighted as follows:

Argentina has issued guidelines to reject ‘frivolous’ patents.
Peru, Columbia, other South American countries have placed curbs.
Philippines has similar provisions.
Australia is contemplating making the law tougher.

Revised report of Dr. R. A. Mashelkar Committee:

Even the revised (March 2009) ‘Report of the Technical Expert Group (TEG) on Patent Law Issues’, the TEG, chaired by the well-known scientist Dr. R.A. Mashelkar, in point number 5.30 of their report recommended as follows:

“Every effort must be made to prevent the practice of ‘evergreening’ often used by some of the pharma companies to unreasonably extend the life of the patent by making claims based sometimes on ‘trivial’ changes to the original patented product. The Indian patent office has the full authority under law and practice to determine what is patentable and what would constitute only a trivial change with no significant additional improvements or inventive steps involving benefits. Such authority should be used to prevent ‘evergreening’, rather than to introduce an arguable concept of ‘statutory exclusion’ of incremental innovations from the scope of patentability.”

Bouquets:

As stated above, many experts across the world believe, the criticism that Section 3 (d) is not TRIPS Agreement compliant is unfounded, as no such complaint has been lodged with the World Trade Organization (WTO) in this matter, thus far. The safeguards provided in the patent law of India will help the country to avoid similar issues now being faced by many countries. Importantly, neither does the section 3(d) stop all ‘incremental innovations’ in India.

Quoting a special adviser for health and development at South Centre, a think tank based in Geneva, Switzerland, a recent report indicated, “Many developing countries will follow India’s example to protect the rights of their populations to have access to essential medicines”.

Yet another report quoting an expert articulates, “India’s top court’s decision affirms India’s position and policy on defining how it defines inventions from a patenting point of view for its development needs. It challenges the patenting standards and practices of the developed countries which are the ones really in much need of reform.”

The Honorable Supreme Court in its Glivec judgment has also confirmed that such safeguard provisions in the statute are expected to withstand the test of time to protect public health interest in India and do not introduce any form of unreasonable restrictions on patentability of drug inventions.

Conclusion:

Not withstanding the report of the US-India Business Council (USIBC) titled ‘The Value of Incremental Innovation: Benefits for Indian Patients and Indian Business’, arguing for abolition of section 3(d) of the Indian Patents Act to pave the way for patentability for all types of incremental innovations in pharmaceuticals, realistically it appears extremely challenging.

As the paper quoted first in this article suggests, denial of patents for inventions of dubious value extending effective patent period through additional patents, is a significant safeguard to protect public health interest. This statutory provision will also pave the way for quick introduction of generics on expiry of the original patent.

Taking all these developments into active consideration, keen industry watchers do believe, for every effort towards balancing IPR with Public Health Interest, both brickbats and bouquets will continue to be showered in varying proportion together with the mounting pressure of power play, especially from the developed world and still for some more time.

However, in India this critical balancing factor seems to have taken its root not just deep and strong, but in all probabilities - both politically and realistically, the law is now virtually irreversible, come what may.

By: Tapan J. Ray

Pharma Innovation Absolutely Critical: But NOT Shorn from Ethics, Propriety, Compliance and Values

Posted on May 20, 2013 by Tapan Ray

Significant value added innovation is the bedrock of progress of the pharmaceutical industry and is essential for the patients. This is a hard fact.

However, this current buzzword – ‘innovation’ can in no way be shorn from soft business necessities like, ethics, propriety, compliance and values… not just for longer term sustainability of business, but more in the larger interest of patients and patient groups.

Most importantly, ‘ethics, propriety, compliance and values’ are not meant for mere display in the corporate websites like, any other business showpieces. These should neither be leveraged to create a false positive impression in the minds of the stakeholders with frequent PR blitzkriegs.

The creators of these soft ‘X factors’ are now being increasingly hauled up for gross violations of the same by the Governments in various parts of the world .These are not just legal issues. The net impact of all such acts goes much beyond.

In this article, I shall deliberate on these continuing and annoying issues both in global and local perspectives, quoting relevant examples at random.

The sole purpose of my argument is to drive home that all such repeated gross violations, as reported in the media, go against patients’ interests, directly or indirectly. None of these incidents, in any way, can be negated with stories of great innovations or with any other make of craftily designed shields.

Under increasing scrutiny in the developed world:

Ethics, propriety and business value standards of big pharma, besides various types of legal compliance, are coming under increasing stakeholders’ scrutiny, especially in the developed markets of the world.

Very frequently media reports from across the world, highlight serous indictments of the Government and even judiciary for bribery, corrupt business practices and other unbecoming conduct, aimed at the the global mascot for healthcare.

It is indeed flabbergasting to note that more and more corporates, with all guns blazing at the same time, publicize with equal zest various initiatives being taken by them to uphold high ethical standards and business practices, if not propriety, as the juggernaut keeps on moving forward, unabated.

The scope of ‘ethics and propriety’:

The scope of ‘ethical business conducts, propriety and value standards’ of a company usually encompasses the following, among many others:

The employees, suppliers, customers and other stakeholders

Caring for the society and environment

Fiduciary responsibilities

Business and marketing practices

R&D activities, including clinical trials

Corporate Governance

Corporate espionage

That said, such scope should not be restricted to the top management, but must be allowed to percolate downwards in a structured manner, looking beyond the legal and regulatory boundaries.

Statistics of compliance to ‘codes of business ethics and corporate values’ are important to know, but the qualitative change in the ethics and value standards of an organization should always be the most important goal to drive any corporation and the pharmaceutical sector is no exception.

‘Business Ethics and Values’ in the globalized economy:

Globalization of business makes the process of formulating the ‘codes of ethics and values’ indeed very challenging for many organizations in many ways. This is mainly because, the cultural differences at times create a conflict on ethics and values involving different countries.

For this purpose, many business organizations prefer to interact with the cultural and religious leaders in the foreign countries, mainly to ascertain what really drives culturally diverse people to act in certain ways.

With the wealth of knowledge of the local customs and people, the cultural and religious leaders can help an organization to unify the code of ethics and values of the globalized business.

Such leaders can also help identifying the ‘common meeting ground of minds’ from a specific country perspective, after carefully assessing the cultural differences, which are difficult to resolve in the near term.

The ‘common meeting ground of minds’ within a given society, thus worked out, could form the bedrock to initiate further steps to strengthen global business standards of ethics and values of an organization.

OECD with USA started early enacting ‘Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA)’:

To prevent bribery and corrupt practices, especially in a foreign land, in 1997, along with 33 other countries belonging to the ‘Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD)’, the United States Congress enacted a law against the bribery of foreign officials, which is known as ‘Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA)’.

This Act marked the early beginnings of ethical compliance program in the United States and disallows the US companies from paying, offering to pay or authorizing to pay money or anything of value either directly or through third parties or middlemen. FCPA currently has significant impact on the way American companies are required to run their business, especially in the foreign land.

A dichotomy exists with ‘Grease Payment’:

OECD classified ‘Grease payment’ as “facilitating one, if it is paid to government employees to speed up an administrative process where the outcome is already pre-determined.”

In the FCPA of the US, ‘Grease Payment’, has been defined as “a payment to a foreign official, political party or party official for ‘routine governmental action,’ such as processing papers, issuing permits, and other actions of an official, in order to expedite performance of duties of non-discretionary nature, i.e., which they are already bound to perform. The payment is not intended to influence the outcome of the official’s action, only its timing.”

Many observers opine, ‘Grease Payments’ is an absolute dichotomy to the overall US policy for ethical standards and against corruption.

Currently besides US, only Canada, Australia, New Zealand and South Korea are the countries that permit ‘Grease payments’.

Notwithstanding, the governments of the US and four other countries allow companies to keep doing business without undue delay by making ‘Grease Payments’ to the lower government officials, such payments are considered illegal in most other countries, in which they are paid, including India.

In India such a business practice is viewed as bribery, which is not only perceived as unethical and immoral, but also a criminal offense under the law of the land. Even otherwise, right or wrong, ‘Grease Payments’ are viewed by a vast majority of the population as a morally questionable standard of ‘business conduct’.

Many companies are setting-up the ethical business standards globally:

While visiting the website of especially the large global and local companies, one finds that all these companies, barring a very few exceptions, have already put in place a comprehensive ‘code of business ethics and values’. Some of these companies have also put in place dedicated code compliance officers across the globe.

‘Practice as you preach’:

Despite all these commendable initiatives towards establishing corporate codes of business ethics and values, the moot question that keeps haunting many times and again: “Do all these companies ‘practice what they preach’ in real life?”

Instances are too many for breach in ethics, propriety and value standards:

The media is now increasingly reporting such instances of violations both locally and globally.

Some Indian examples: (At random, not in a chronological order)

Criminal drug regulatory manipulation:

One of India’s top pharma players reportedly will pay a record fine of US$ 500 million in the US for lying to officials and selling badly made generic drugs.

The company has pleaded guilty to improper manufacturing, storing and testing of drugs, closing a year long civil and criminal investigation into the matter.

Compensation for deaths related to Clinical Trials not paid:

In 2011 the Drug Controller General of India (DCGI) reportedly summoned nine pharma companies on June 6 to question them on the amount of compensation they have decided to pay the ‘victims of their clinical trials’, which is a mandatory part of any clinical trial, or else all other trials of these nine companies going on at that time or yet to start, will not be allowed.

Clinical Trial is another area of pharmaceutical business, especially in the Indian context, where more often than not, issues related to ethics and values are being raised. In an article titled, ‘Clinical trials in India: ethical concerns’ published by the World Health Organization (WHO) following observations have been made:

“The latest developments in India reflect a concerted effort on the part of the global public health community to push clinical trials issues to the fore in the wake of several high-profile cases in which pharmaceutical companies were shown to be withholding information from regulators.”

Alleged marketing malpractices:

In 2010, the Parliamentary Standing committee on Health reportedly expressed concern that the “evil practice” of inducement of doctors by the pharma players continues.

Congress MP Jyoti Mirdha sent a bunch of photocopies of air tickets to Prime Minister Manmohan Singh to claim that doctors and their families were ‘beating the scorching Indian summer’ with a trip to England and Scotland, courtesy a pharmaceutical company.

30 family members of 11 doctors from all over the country reportedly enjoyed the hospitality of the concerned company.

Department of Pharmaceuticals reportedly roped in the Revenue Department under Finance Ministry to work out methods to link the money trail to offending companies.

Some global examples: (At random, not in a chronological order)

United States Government sues a Swiss pharma major for alleged multi-million dollar kickbacks:

The United States Government very recently reportedly announced its second civil fraud lawsuit against a Swiss drug major accusing the company of paying multimillion-dollar kickbacks to doctors in exchange for prescribing its drugs.

Fraud fines:

Two largest drug makers of the world reportedly paid US$ 8 billion in fraud fines for repeatedly defrauding Medicare and Medicaid in the USA over the past decade.

Denigrating generics:

Another global pharma major reportedly has been recently fined US$ 52.8 million for denigrating generic copies.

Drug overcharging:

Another global drug major reportedly stirred an ethics scandal and paid US$ 499 million towards overcharging the US government for medicines.

Bribing doctors:

A top global pharma player reportedly paid total US$ 60.2 million to settle a federal investigation on alleged bribing overseas doctors and other health officials to prescribe medicines.

Another European pharma group reportedly was fined US$ 3bn after admitting bribing doctors and encouraging the prescription of unsuitable antidepressants to children.

Concealment of important facts:

A judge in USA reportedly ordered a large pharma company to pay more than $1.2 billion in fines after a jury found that the company had minimized or concealed the dangers associated with an antipsychotic drug.

Off-label marketing:

A Swiss pharma major reportedly agreed to pay US$ 422.5 million to resolve an investigation into alleged off-label promotion of a drug, as well as civil allegations relating to five other products.

The U.S. Justice Department reportedly hit an American drug major with a US$ 322 million penalty for illegally promoting a drug before it received approval by the Food and Drug Administration for that condition.

Other illegal marketing practices:

Yet another European pharma group was reportedly fined USD 34 million by a court in the United States for illegal marketing practices for its medicine.

‘Illegal’ Clinical Trials:

It was revealed on May 17, 2013 that global pharmaceutical companies reportedly paid millions of pounds to former communist East Germany to use more that 50,000 patients in state-run hospitals as unwitting guinea pigs for drug tests in which several people died.

All these are some random examples of alleged malpractices associated with ‘ethics, propriety, compliance and values’ in the pharma world, both local and global.

Middle and lower management becomes the ‘fall guy’:

It is interesting to note that whenever, such incidents take place, the fingers are usually pointed towards the middle or lower management cadre of the corporations concerned for violations and non-compliance.

Corporate or top management ownership of such seemingly deplorable incidents still remains confined within a ‘black box’ and probably a distant reality.

Public perception is not encouraging:

In the pharmaceutical sector all over the world, many business practices have still remained very contentious, despite many well-publicized attempts of self-regulation by the industry. The flow of complaints for alleged unethical business practices have not slowed down either, across the world, even after so many years of self-regulation, penalty and severe indictments.

Government apathy in India:

Nearer home, the Government apathy, despite being pressured by the respective Parliamentary Committees and sometimes including judiciary in repose to Public Interest Litigations (PIL), has indeed been appalling, thus far.

The Department of Pharmaceuticals of the Government of India has already circulated a draft ‘Uniform Code of Pharmaceutical Marketing Practices (UCPMP)’ for stakeholders to comment on it. The final UCPMP, when it comes into force, if not implemented by the pharmaceutical players in its ‘letter and spirit’, may attract government’s ire in form of strong doses of regulatory measures. However, the moot question remains, will the UCPMP come at all?

Similar issues are there in drug regulatory areas falling under the Ministry of Health, especially in the clinical trial area. In this matter, very fortunately Supreme Court has intervened against a Public Interest Litigation (PIL). Thus, one can expect to witness some tangible steps being taken in this area, sooner than later.

Walking the talk:

The need to formulate and more importantly effectively implement ‘Codes of Business Ethics & Values’ should gain increasing relevance in the globalized business environment, including in India.

It appears from the media reports, many companies across the world are increasingly resorting to ‘unethical behavior, impropriety and business malpractices’ due to intense pressure for business performance, as demanded primarily by the stock markets.

There is no global consensus, as yet, on what is ethically and morally acceptable ‘Business Ethics and Values’ across the world. However, even if these are implemented in a country-specific way, the most challenging obstacle to overcome by the corporates would still remain ‘walking the talk’ and owning responsibility at the top.

Conclusion:

Pharmaceutical innovation will continue to remain the launch pad for the industry growth in the battle against diseases of all types, forms and severity. However, that alone should in no way deserve to receive encouragement from any corner shorn from Ethics, Propriety, Compliance and Values.

Balancing pharmaceutical innovation with Ethics, Propriety, Compliance and Values, I reckon, will in turn help striking a right balance, to a considerable extent, between pharmaceutical innovation and public health interest for everyones’ satisfaction, mostly the patients.

Being equipped with the wherewithal to bring new drugs for the global population and being the fundamental source of growth momentum for the generic drug industry of the world, the innovator companies are expected to lead by setting examples in this area too. After all, as the saying goes:

“Caesar’s wife ought to be above suspicion. ‥Caesar himself ought to be so too”.

By: Tapan J. Ray

Does the Landmark Glivec Judgment Discourage Innovation in India?

Posted on April 8, 2013 by Tapan Ray

No, I do not think so. The 112 pages well articulated judgment of the Supreme Court of India delivered on April 1, 2013, does not even remotely discourage innovation in India, including much talked about ‘incremental innovation’. This landmark judgment reconfirms the rules of the game for pharmaceutical innovation, as captured in the Indian Patents Act 2005.

When one reads the judgment, point 191 in page number 95 very clearly states as follows:

“191. We have held that the subject product, the beta crystalline form of Imatinib Mesylate, does not qualify the test of Section 3(d) of the Act but that is not to say that Section 3(d) bars patent protection for all incremental inventions of chemical and pharmaceutical substances. It will be a grave mistake to read this judgment to mean that section 3(d) was amended with the intent to undo the fundamental change brought in the patent regime by deletion of section 5 from the Parent Act. That is not said in this judgment.”

Thus all ‘incremental innovations’, which some people always paint with a general broad brush of ‘evergreening’, should no longer be a taboo in India. The judgment just says that Glivec is not patentable as per Section 3(d) of Indian Patents Act based on the data provided and arguments of Novartis.

To me, the judgment does also not signal that no more Glivec like case will come to the Supreme Court in future. It vindicated inclusion of Section 3(d) in the amended Indian Patents Act 2005.

It is interesting to note that honorable Supreme Court itself used the terminology of ‘incremental innovation’ for such cases.

That said, I find it extremely complex to imagine what would have happened, if the judgment had gone the opposite way.

A critical point to ponder:

The judgment will also mean that all those products, having valid product patents abroad, if fail to meet the requirements of Section 3(d), will not be patentable in India, enabling introduction of their generic equivalents much sooner in the country and at the same time causing a nightmarish situation for their innovators.

However, this again, in no way, is an outcome of this judgement or a new development, as stated above. It is just vindication of the intent behind inclusion of Section 3(d) in the amended Indian Patents Act, when it was enacted by the Parliament of India in 2005.

Patentability of ‘Incremental Innovations’ in India:

Patentability criteria for any ‘incremental innovations’ has been defined in the Section 3(d) of the Indian statute as follows:

“The mere discovery of a new form of a known substance which does not result in the enhancement of the known efficacy of that substance or the mere discovery of any new property or new use for a known substance or of the mere use of a known process, machine or apparatus unless such known process results in a new product or employs at least one new reactant.

Explanation: For the purposes of this clause, salts, esters, ethers, polymorphs, metabolites, pure form, particle size isomers, mixtures of isomers, complexes, combinations and other derivatives of known substance shall be considered to be the same substance, unless they differ significantly in properties with regard to efficacy.”

Supreme Court interpretation of the term “Efficacy” in Section 3(d):

The Honorable Supreme Court in page 90 of its above order under point 180 stated that in case of medicines, efficacy can only be “therapeutic efficacy”, which must be judged strictly and narrowly. The interpretation goes as follows:

180. “What is “efficacy”? Efficacy means ‘the ability to produce a desired or intended result’. Hence, the test of efficacy in the context of section 3(d) would be different, depending upon the result the product under consideration is desired or intended to produce. In other words, the test of efficacy would depend upon the function, utility or the purpose of the product under consideration. Therefore, in the case of a medicine that claims to cure a disease, the test of efficacy can only be “therapeutic efficacy”.

The Honorable Court under the same point 180 further elaborated:

“With regard to the genesis of section 3(d), and more particularly the circumstances in which section 3(d) was amended to make it even more constrictive than before, we have no doubt that the “therapeutic efficacy” of a medicine must be judged strictly and narrowly…Further, the explanation requires the derivative to ‘differ significantly in properties with regard to efficacy’. What is evident, therefore, is that not all advantageous or beneficial properties are relevant, but only such properties that directly relate to efficacy, which in case of medicine, as seen above, is its therapeutic efficacy.”

Based on this interpretation of Section 3(d), the Honorable Supreme Court of India ordered that Glivec does not fulfill the required criteria of the statute.

The rationale behind Section 3(d):

A report on ‘Patentability of the incremental innovation’ indicates that the policy makers keeping the following points in mind formulated the Indian Patents Act 2005:

The strict standards of patentability as envisaged by TRIPS pose a challenge to India’s pharmaceutical industry, whose success depended on the ability to produce generic drugs at much cheaper prices than their patented equivalents.

A stringent patent system would severely curtail access to expensive life saving drugs to a large number of populations in India.

Grant of a product patents should be restricted only to “genuine innovations” and those “incremental innovations” on existing medicines, which will be able to demonstrate significantly increased efficacy over the original drug.

IPA challenges: 86 pharmaceutical patents granted by IPO fall under Section 3(d):

A study by the ‘Indian Pharmaceutical Alliance (IPA)’ indicates that 86 pharmaceutical patents granted by the IPO post 2005 are not breakthrough inventions but only minor variations of existing pharmaceutical products and demanded re-examination of them.

Possible implications to IPA challenge:

If the argument, as expressed above in the IPA study, is true by any stretch of imagination, in that case, there exists a theoretical possibility of at least 86 already granted product patents to get revoked. This will invite again another nightmarish situation for innovators.

Examples of revocation of patents in India:

On November 26, 2012, the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB) reportedly denied patent protection for AstraZeneca’s anti-cancer drug Gefitinib on the ground that the molecule lacked invention.

The report also states that AstraZeneca suffered its first setback on Gefitinib in June 2006, when the Indian generic company Natco Pharma opposed the initial patent application filed by the global major in a pre-grant opposition. Later on, another local company, GM Pharma, joined Natco in November 2006.

After accepting the pre-grant opposition by the two Indian companies, the Indian Patent office (IPO) in March 2007 rejected the patent application for Gefitinib citing ‘known prior use’ of the drug. AstraZeneca contested the order through a review petition, which was dismissed in May 2011.

Prior to this, on November 2, 2012 the IPAB revoked the patent of Pegasys (Peginterferon alfa-2a) – the hepatitis C drug of the global pharmaceutical giant Roche.

Though Roche was granted a patent for Pegasys by the Indian Patent Office (IPO) in 2006, this was subsequently contested by a post-grant challenge by the large Indian pharma player – Wockhardt and the NGO Sankalp Rehabilitation Trust (SRT) on the ground that Pegasys is neither a “novel” product nor did it demonstrate ‘inventiveness’, as required by Section 3(d) of Patents Act of India 2005.

It is worth noting, although the IPO had rejected the patent challenges by Wockhardt and SRT in 2009, IPAB reversed IPO’s decision revoking the patent of Pegasys.

Similarly the patent for liver and kidney cancer drug of Pfizer – Sutent (Sunitinib) granted by IPO in 2007, was revoked by the IPAB in October, 2012 after a post grant challenge by Cipla and Natco Pharma on the ground that the claimed ‘invention’ does not involve inventive steps.

Patent challenges under section 3(d) may come up even more frequently in future:

Some observers in this field have expressed, although ‘public health interest’ is the primary objective for having Section 3(d) in the Indian Patents Act 2005, many generic companies, both local and global, have already started exploiting this provision as a part of their ‘business strategy’ to improve business performance in India, especially when an injunction is usually not being granted by the honorable Courts for such cases on public health interest ground.

Thus, as stated above, there is likely to be many more cases like, Glivec coming before the Supreme Court in the years ahead.

Another related development of the last week:

It has been reported that American pharma major MSD has last week filed a suit in the Delhi High Court against Indian pharma major – Glenmark for alleged patent violation of its leading anti-diabetic drugs Januvia and Janumet. In this case also no interim injunction has reportedly been granted to MSD by the Honorable Delhi High Court.

Glenmark has stated through a media report, “It is a responsible company and has launched the products after due diligence and research.” The company has also announced that their version of the molecule named Zita and Zita Met will be available to patients at a 20 percent discount to MSD’s price.

Hence, once again, the Indian court to decide, the balance of justice would now point to which direction.

Government has no role to play – patent challenge is a legal process across the world:

The proponents of ‘no change required in the Section 3(d)’ argue, ‘Patent Challenge’ is a legal process all over the world, the Government has hardly got any role to play in settling such disputes. The law should be allowed to take its own course for all disputes related to the Patents Act of the country, including Section 3(d).

They also opine that India must be allowed to follow the law of justice without casting aspersions on the knowledge and biases of the Indian judiciary for vested interests.

That said, there is certainly an urgent need to add speed to this legal process by setting up ‘Fast-track Courts’ for resolving all Intellectual Property (IP) related disputes in a time bound manner.

Arguments against Section 3(d):

Opposition to the Section 3(d) counter-argues by saying, this is a critical period for India to help fostering an appropriate ecosystem for innovation in the country. This group emphasizes, “Providing the right incentives for incremental pharmaceutical innovation can move India forward on this path and encourage the development of drug products that meet the needs of Indian patients. Reforming Section 3(d) to encourage and protect incremental pharmaceutical innovation would create such incentives and help India become a true powerhouse of innovation.”

Another group says that the main reason in favor of Section 3(d) being the provision will prevent grant of frivolous patents, the ultimate fallout of which will result in limited access to these drugs due to high price, is rather irrelevant today. This, they point out, is mainly because the Government is now actively mulling a structured mechanism of price negotiation for all patented drugs to improve their access to patients in India.

Importance of ‘Incremental Innovation’ in India:

Incremental innovations are indeed very important for the country and have been benefiting the patients immensely over decades, across the world.

A report titled, “The Value Of Incremental Pharmaceutical Innovation” highlighted as follows:

As per the National Knowledge Commission, while 37.3% of Indian companies introduced breakthrough innovations in recent years, no fewer than 76.4% introduced incremental innovations.

60 percent of the drugs on the World health Organization’s essential Drug list reflect incremental improvements over older drugs.

The report indicates some of the benefits of ‘Incremental Pharmaceutical Innovation’ for India as follows:

Improved quality of drug products, including products that are better suited to India’s climate.
Development of treatments for diseases that are prevalent in India for which new drug discovery is currently limited or otherwise inadequate.
Increasing likelihood that for every therapeutic class, there is a treatment to which an Indian patient will respond.
Development of the R&D capacity and expertise  of Indian pharmaceutical companies.
Reduction of healthcare and other social costs in India through improved drug quality and selection.
Increased access to medicine as a result of price competition.

The study concluded by saying that Section 3(d) potentially precludes the patenting of hundreds of incremental pharmaceutical innovations that Indian companies are attempting to patent and commercialize outside India.

There are umpteen numbers of examples that can ably demonstrate, ‘incremental innovation’ of the pharmaceutical innovators help significantly improving the efficacy and safety of existing drugs. All such innovations should in no way be considered “frivolous” as they have very substantial and positive impact in improving conditions of the ailing patients.

Be that as it may, the Supreme Court judgment has categorically mentioned that all ‘Incremental innovations’ should conform to the requirement of the Section 3(d) of the statute.

“West should learn from India’s high patent standards”

An article appeared just yesterday written by a well-regarded Indian economist recommended, “West should learn from India’s high patent standards”. It observed that over-liberal patent system of the West is now broken and it should learn from India’s much tougher patent system.

Patent monopolies needs to be given only for genuine innovations, as defined in the Indian Patents Act 2005, where the public benefits clearly exceed the monopoly cost.

The author concluded by saying, “This means setting a high bar for innovation. High standards are desirable for patents, as for everything else.”

View of the Glivec inventor:

In another interview titled, “If you erode patents, where will innovations come from?” Dr Brian Druker, whose work resulted in the development of Glivec, re-emphasizing the need for R&D by the pharmaceutical industry, commented, “I’m going to stay away from the legal judgment … but as a physician, I do recognize that the advances will come from new products, not modifications.”

Are discordant voices out of step with time?

The interpretation of the Section 3(d) of the statute by the Honorable Supreme Court of India is the last word for all, despite a few voices of discord from within and mostly outside India. These voices, many would reckon, could well be out of step with time, especially in relatively fast growing, modern, independent, thinking and assertive young India.

Conclusion:

In my view, nothing materially has changed on the ground before and after the Supreme Court judgment on the Glivec case so far as the Indian Patents Act is concerned and also in its interpretation.

While encouraging all types of innovations, including incremental ones and protecting them with an effective IPR regime are very important for any country. No nation can afford to just wish away various socioeconomic expectations, demands and requirements not just of the poor, but also of the growing middle class intelligentsia, as gradually getting unfolded in many parts of the globe.

Available indicators do point out that the civil society would continue to expect in return, just, fair, responsible and reasonably affordable prices for the innovative medicines, based on the overall socioeconomic status of the local population.

This critical balancing factor is essential not only for the progress of the pharmaceutical industry, but also to alleviate sufferings of the ailing population of the country, effectively.

For arguments sake, in an ideal scenario, if the Central and State Governments in India decide to buy such drugs to supply to all patients free of cost, just like any ‘welfare state’, will even the Government be able to afford these prices and fund such schemes in India?

It is, therefore, now widely expected that innovator pharmaceutical companies, which play a pivotal role in keeping population of any nation healthy and disease free to the extent possible, should also proactively find out ways to help resolving this critical issue in India, working closely with the Government of 1.2 billion Indians, including other concerned stakeholders.

In that context, the landmark Supreme Court judgment on the Glivec case has vindicated the need of striking a right balance between encouraging and protecting innovation, including incremental ones and the public health interest of India.

By: Tapan J. Ray

The R&D Factor: “One of the Great Myths of the Industry”

Posted on March 25, 2013 by Tapan Ray

Yes, that is what the global CEO of one of the Pharmaceutical giants of the world commented in a very recent interview with Reuters. Adding further to this comment he said, “US $1 billion price tag for R&D was an average figure that includes money spent on drugs that ultimately fail… If you stop failing so often, you massively reduce the cost of drug development … It’s entirely achievable.”

Therefore, he concluded his interview by saying that the pharmaceutical industry should be able to charge much less for new drugs by passing on efficiencies in R&D to the customers.

A vindication:

The above comment does not seem to be a one off remark. A recent study on R&D productivity of 12 top pharmaceutical companies of the world by Deloitte and Thomson Reuters highlighted that the average cost of developing a new medicine is now US$ 1.1 billion with the most successful company in the group studied incurred an average cost of just US$ 315 million, while at the other extreme, another company spent US$ 2.8 billion.

How much of it then covers the cost of failures and who pays for such inefficiencies?

Some experts have gone even further:

Some experts in this area have gone even further arguing that pharmaceutical R&D expenses are over stated and the real costs are much less.

An article titled “Demythologizing the high costs of pharmaceutical research”, published by the London School of Economics and Political Science in 2011 indicates that the total cost from the discovery and development stages of a new drug to its market launch was around US$ 802 million in the year 2000. This was worked out in 2003 by the ‘Tuft Center for the Study of Drug Development’ in Boston, USA.

However, in 2006 this figure increased by 64 per cent to US$ 1.32 billion, as reported by a large overseas pharmaceutical industry association.

The authors of the above article also mentioned that the following factors were not considered while working out the 2006 figure of US$ 1.32 billion:

▪ The tax exemptions that the companies avail for investing in R&D.

▪ Tax write-offs amount to taxpayers’ contributing almost 40% of the R&D cost.

▪ The cost of basic research should not have been included, as these are mostly undertaken by public funded universities or laboratories.

The article commented that ‘half the R&D costs are inflated estimates of profits that companies could have made if they had invested in the stock market instead of R&D and include exaggerated expenses on clinical trials’.

“High R&D costs have been the industry’s excuses for charging high prices”:

In the same article the authors strongly commented as follows:

“Pharmaceutical companies have a strong vested interest in maximizing figures for R&D as high research and development costs have been the industry’s excuse for charging high prices. It has also helped generating political capital worth billions in tax concessions and price protection in the form of increasing patent terms and extending data exclusivity.”

The study concludes by highlighting that “the real R&D cost for a drug borne by a pharmaceutical company is probably about US$ 60 million.”

Another perspective to the “R&D Factor”:

A book titled “Pharmaceutical R&D: Costs, Risks, and Rewards”, published by the government of USA gives another perspective to the “R&D Factor”. It articulates that the three most important components of R&D investments are:

Money
Time
Risk

Money is just one component of investment, along with a long duration of time, to reap benefits of success, which is intertwined with a very high risk of failure. The investors in the pharmaceutical R&D projects not only take into account how much investment is required for the project against expected financial returns, but also the timing of inflow and outflow of fund with associated risks. It is thus quite understandable that longer is the wait for the investors to get their real return, greater will be their expectations for the same.

This publication also highlights that the cost of bringing a new drug from ‘mind to market’ depends on the quality and sophistication of science and technology involved in a particular R&D process together with associated investment requirements for the same.

In addition, regulatory demand to get marketing approval of a complex molecule for various serious disease types is also getting more and more stringent, significantly increasing their cost of clinical development in tandem. All these factors when taken together, the authors argue, make the cost of R&D not only very high, but unpredictable too.

Thus to summarize from the above study, high pharmaceutical R&D costs involve:

Sophisticated science and technology dependent high up-front financial investments
A long and indefinite period of negative cash flow
High tangible and intangible costs for acquiring technology with rapid trend of obsolescence
High risk of failure at any stage of product development

Even reengineered R&D model may not be sustainable:

Many research scientists have already highlighted that sharp focus in some critical areas may help containing the R&D expenditure to a considerable extent and also would help avoiding the cost of failures significantly. The savings thus made, in turn, can fund a larger number of R&D projects.

The areas identified are as follows:

Early stage identification of unviable new molecules and jettisoning them quickly.
Newer cost efficient R&D models.
Significant reduction in drug development time.

Unfortunately, sustainability of the above model too still remains in the realm of a wishful thinking and raises a serious question mark to many for various other reasons.

Should Pharmaceutical R&D move away from its traditional models?

Thus the critical point to ponder today, should the Pharmaceutical R&D now move from its traditional comfort zone of expensive one company initiative to a much less charted frontier of sharing drug discovery involving many players? If this overall approach gains acceptance sooner by all concerned, it could lead to increase in R&D productivity significantly at a much lesser cost, benefiting the patients community at large.

Finding right pathway in this direction is more important today than ever before, as the R&D productivity of the global pharmaceutical industry, in general, keeps going south and that too at a faster pace, prompting major cuts in the absolute R&D expenditure by many, as compared to the previous year.

A global R&D spend comparison (2011 and 12):

R&D expenditures in absolute terms of the following global companies in 2011 and 2012, without drawing any relationship to their respective R&D productivity, were reportedly as follows:

Company	2012 US$ Bn.	2011 US$ Bn.	% Change	% of Sale
Roche	10.10	8.81	13.7	21.0
Novartis	9.33	9.58	(3.0)	16.4
Merck	8.16	8.46	(4.0)	17.0
Pfizer	7.90	9.10	(13.0)	13.3
J&J	7.66	7.54	1.5	11.6
Sanofi	6.40	6.24	2.5	14.1
GSK	5.95	6.01	(1.0)	15.0
Eli Lilly	5.30	5.00	5.0	23.4
AstraZeneca	5.24	5.52	(5.0)	18.8
Abbott Labs	4.32	4.12	4.7	10.8
Total	70.36	70.38

Source: Fierce Biotech, March 18, 2013

This particular table points out that five out of the reported ten companies had to spend less towards R&D in 2012 as compared to 2011 and four out of the remaining five players were able to increase their R&D spend just marginally.

Thus the same question comes at the top of mind yet again: is the current pharmaceutical R&D model sustainable and working with optimal productivity and cost efficiency for the benefits of patients?

Towards greater sustainability of the R&D model:

A July 2010 study of Frost & Sullivan reports, “Open source innovation increasingly being used to promote innovation in the drug discovery process and boost bottom-line”.

It underscores the urgent need for the global pharmaceutical companies to respond to the challenges of high cost and low productivity in their respective R&D initiatives, in general.

The ‘Open Innovation’ model assumes even greater importance today, as we have noted above, to avoid huge costs of R&D failures, which are eventually passed on to the patients through the drug pricing mechanism.

‘Open Innovation’ model, as they proposed, will be most appropriate to even promote highly innovative approaches in the drug discovery process bringing many brilliant scientific minds together from across the world.

The key objective of ‘Open Innovation’ in pharmaceuticals is, therefore, to encourage drug discovery initiatives at a much lesser cost, especially for non-infectious chronic diseases or the dreaded ailments like Cancer, Parkinson’s, Alzheimer, Multiple Sclerosis, including many neglected diseases of the developing countries, making innovative drugs affordable even to the marginalized section of the society.

“Open Innovation” is very successful in IT industry:

The concept of ‘Open Innovation’ is being quite successfully used in the Information Technology (IT) industry since nearly three decades across the world, including India. Web Technology, Linux Operating System (OS) and even the modern day ‘Android’ are excellent examples of commercially successful ‘Open innovation’ model in IT,

In the sphere of Biotechnology ‘Human Genome Sequencing’ is another remarkable outcome of such type of R&D model. Therefore, why not a similar model be actively pursued in a much larger scale to discover newer and innovative drugs at a much lesser cost for greater access to patients?

Issues involved:

In the evolving process of ‘Open Innovation’ in pharma there are some issues to be addressed and at the same time some loose knots to be tightened to make the process increasingly more user friendly and robust. Many experts feel that the key issues for the ‘Open Innovation’ model are as follows:

▪ Who will fund the project and how much?

▪ Who will lead the project?

▪ Who will coordinate the project and find talents?

▪ Who will take it through clinical development and regulatory approval process?

That said, all these issues do not seem to be insurmountable problems at all to add greater speed and efficiency to the process, as the saying goes, ‘where there is a will, there is a way’.

Conclusion:

Having deliberated on this issue as above, I reckon, there is a dire need to make the process of offering innovative drugs at affordable prices to the patients sustainable over a long period of time, for the sake of all.

This can happen only when there will be a desire to step into the uncharted frontier, coming out of much beaten and a high cost tract of R&D, especially after having picked-up the low hanging fruits. Dove tailing the passion for business excellence with the patients’ interest, dispassionately, will then be the name of the game.

As the Reuters article quoting the CEO of a global pharma major points out, in addition to improvements in research, increasing global demand for medicines and the explosion in the volume of products sold in emerging markets should also contribute to lower unit costs of the innovative drugs ensuring their greater access to patients.

This process, in turn, will help fostering a win-win situation for all stakeholders, exploding “one of the great myths of the industry” – The ‘R&D Factor’.

By: Tapan J. Ray

An El Dorado…But Not Without Responsible Pricing:The Cancer Segment in India

Posted on February 4, 2013 by Tapan Ray

The affordability issue for cancer treatment has been the subject of a raging debate since quite some time, as the incidence of cancer is fast increasing across the world. Just for example a very recent report highlighted that cancer has now become the greatest health risk in the UK, with an average British boy born in 2010 running a 44 percent chance of being diagnosed with any form of cancer during his lifetime. The risk for a baby girl is slightly lower at 40 percent.

In India too, the problem of affordable cancer treatment has now become the center piece of a fiercer public opinion in the healthcare space, more than even HIV, prompting the Government to intervene in this dreadful disease area and address the problem in a holistic way both in the short and also on a longer term basis. This demand is supported by rapidly growing number of cancer patients in the country.

Out of the total number of new cancer patients globally, India now reportedly ranks third as follows:

Rank	Country	% Of total
1.	China	22
2.	USA	11
3.	India	7.5

As a consequence, cancer now reportedly accounts for one of the main causes of deaths in India, which is nearly 19 percent higher than deaths caused by heart diseases.

Number of new cancer patients staggering in India:

Over 60,000 new cases are reportedly diagnosed every year in India and 80 percent of them are at an advanced stage, which involve mostly the middle-aged and elderly population of the country, where affordability is even a greater issue.

Cervical and breast cancers are reportedly the most common, contributing over 26 per cent to the total cancer cases in India, followed by lung, mouth, pharynx, ovarian, pancreatic and esophagus cancers.

Whereas cervical cancer is reportedly most common in females with a mortality rate of nearly 15 per 10,000 females, lung cancer has the highest mortality rate of 28 per 10,000 males.

Incidentally, lung cancer is the most commonly diagnosed cancer even globally. Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer (NSCLC) accounts for approximately 90% of all lung cancers. The primary cause of lung cancer in up to 90% of patients is tobacco and represents one-fifth of all cancer-related deaths in India.

However, to address the havoc caused by this dreaded disease effectively, India will also need to bridge the huge gap of shortfall in disease diagnostic infrastructure in the country.

The humongous access gap for cancer patients needs to be effectively addressed by the Government sooner with Public-Private-Partnership (PPP) for diagnosis and treatment, in tandem with other proactive initiatives like, disease awareness campaigns targeted to ensure greater screening and disease prevention, wherever possible.

‘The Lancet’ finding:

Following are some of the important findings on cancer disease profile in India, as reported in May 12, 2012, edition of ‘The Lancet’:

- 6 percent of the study deaths were due to cancer

- 71 percent cancer deaths occurred in people aged 30—69 years

- Age-standardized cancer mortality rates per 100,000 were similar in rural and urban areas but varied greatly between the states, and were two times higher in the least educated than in the most educated adults.

This report further calls for immediate Government intervention in this area.

Growing patients number making ‘Oncology Market’ increasingly attractive:

As stated above, incidence of various types of cancer is rapidly increasing across the world, making oncology segment an ‘El Dorado’ for many pharmaceutical players prompting commensurate investments for product development in this area, be these are new molecules or biosimilars.

Thus, the global turnover of anti-cancer drugs, which was around US$ 50 billion in 2009, is expected to grow to US$ 75 billion in 2013 registering a jaw dropping growth rate in today’s turbulent global pharmaceutical market environment.

World Health Organization (WHO) has predicted over 20 million new cases of cancer in 2025 against 12 million in 2008.

Globally, the segment growth will mainly be driven by early detection, longer duration of treatment and the global ascending trend in the incidence and prevalence of cancer propelled by new treatments and improved access to cancer therapies in many countries.

Indian business landscape:

Oncology segment has now emerged as a leading therapeutic area in the Indian pharmaceuticals market too, being fourth largest in volume and tenth largest in value term, mainly driven by lower priced generic equivalents in volume term.

Despite only a smaller number of patients can afford any comprehensive cancer treatment protocol in India, the demand for cancer drugs in the country, where many drug companies follow various types of unconventional logistics systems to reach these drugs to patients, is increasing at a rapid pace.

Global players namely, Roche, BMS, Pfizer, Sanofi, GSK and Merck reportedly dominate the market with innovative drugs. Whereas, domestic companies like, Natco Pharma, Cipla, Sun Pharma, Dr. Reddy’s Lab (DRL), Biocon and others are now coming up with low price generic equivalents of many cancer drugs.

The fact that currently over 30 pharmaceutical companies market cancer drug in the country, demonstrates growing attractiveness of the Oncology segment in India.

Access to newer cancer drugs:

It has been widely reported that newer cancer therapies have significant advantages over available generic cancer drugs both in terms of survival rate and toxicity.

Unfortunately such types of drugs cost very high, severely limiting access to their therapeutic benefits for majority of patients. For a month’s treatment such drugs reportedly cost on an average US$ 3,000 – 4,500 or Rs 1.64 – 2.45 lakh to each patient in India.

More R&D investments in Oncology segment:

Another study recently published by ‘Citeline’ in its ‘Pharma R&D Annual Review 2012’ points out, more than half of the top 25 disease areas targeted for R&D falls under cancer therapy. Breast cancer comes out as the single most targeted disease followed by Type 2 diabetes.

This will ensure steady growth of the Oncology segment over a long period of time and simultaneously the issue of access to these medicines to a large number of patients, if the product pricing does not fall in line with socioeconomic considerations of India.

Cancer drug sales dominated in 2012:

It is interesting to note that around one-third of the ‘Top 10 Brands in 2012′ were for the treatment of cancer as follows:

Top 10 global brands in 2012

Rank	Brand	Therapy Area	Company	Sales: (US$ bn)
1.	Humira	Rheumatoid Arthritis and others	Abbott /Eisai (now AbbVie/Eisai)	9.48
2.	Enbrel	Anti-inflammatory	Amgen/Pfizer/Takeda	8.37
3.	Advair/Seretide	Asthma, COPD	GlaxoSmithKline	8.0
4.	Remicade	Auto-immune	Johnson & Johnson/Merck/ Mitsubishi Tanabe	7.67
5.	Rituxan	Anti-cancer	Roche	6.94
6.	Crestor	Anti-lipid	AstraZeneca/ Shionogi	6.65
7.	Lantus	Anti-diabetic	Sanofi	6.12
8.	Herceptin	Anti-cancer	Roche	6.08
9.	Avastin	Anti-cancer	Roche	5.98
10.	Lipitor	Anti-lipid	Pfizer/Astellas Pharma/Jeil Pharmaceutical	5.55

(Source: Fierce Pharma)

Responsible Pricing a key issue with cancer drugs:

In the battle against the much dreaded disease cancer, the newer innovative drugs being quite expensive, even in the developed markets the healthcare providers are feeling the heat of cost pressure of such medications, which in turn could adversely impact the treatment decisions for the patients.

Thus, to help the oncologists to appropriately discuss the treatment cost of anti-cancer drugs with the patients, the ‘American Society of Clinical Oncology’ recently has formed a task force who will also try to resolve this critical issue.

In many other developed markets of the world, for expensive cancer medications, the patients are required to bear the high cost of co-payment. This may run equivalent to thousands of U.S dollars, which many patients reportedly find difficult to arrange.

It has been reported that even the ‘National Institute of Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE), UK’ considers some anti-cancer drugs not cost-effective enough for inclusion in the NHS formulary, sparking another set of raging debate.

‘The New England Journal of Medicine’ in one of its recent articles with detail analysis, also expressed its concern over sharp increase in the price of anti-cancer medications, specifically.

An interesting approach:

Experts are now deliberating upon the possibility of creating a ‘comparative effectiveness center’ for anti-cancer drugs. This center will be entrusted with the responsibility to find out the most cost effective and best suited anti-cancer drugs that will be suitable for a particular patient, eliminating possibility of any wasteful expenses with the new drugs just for newness and some additional features. If several drugs are found to be working equally well on the same patient, most cost effective medication will be recommended to the particular individual.

India should also explore this possibility without further delay.

Indian Government trying to find an answer in CL/NLEM/NPPP 2012:

Going by the recent developments in Compulsory License (CL) area for high priced new and innovative cancer drugs, it appears that in the times to come exorbitant prices for cancer drugs may prove to be loaded with risks of grant of CL in India due to immense public pressure.

It appears from the grapevine that Government may also explore the possibility to include some of the newer cancer drugs under National List of Essential Medicines (NLEM) bringing them under price control in conformance with the National Pharmaceutical Pricing Policy 2012 (NPPP 2012), if not through the provision of pricing of patented drugs.

Thus responsible pricing of cancer drugs assumes huge importance for avoidance of the above unpleasant situation in India.

Cancer drug pricing related developments in India:

As stated above, cancer being the second largest killer in India and the patented cancer drugs being generally expensive, a large Indian pharmaceutical player has been reportedly insisting on the government to allow widespread use of “compulsory licenses” for cancer drugs. About 11 years ago various news reports highlighted that this company broke ‘monopoly ‘ of the multinationals by offering to supply life-saving triple therapy AIDS drug cocktails for under US$1 a day, which is about one-thirtieth the price of the global companies.

In May 2012, this same Indian company named Cipla, significantly reduced the cost of three medicines to fight brain, kidney and lung cancers in India, making these drugs around four times cheaper than the originators, as per the above news report. The company reportedly wants to reduce the prices of more cancer drugs in future.

Prompted by the above steps taken by Dr. Yusuf Hamied, the Chairman of Cipla, many global players have reportedly branded him as an Intellectual Property (IP) thief, while Dr. Hamied reportedly accused them of being “Global Serial Killers” whose high prices are costing many precious lives across the globe.

In the same interview Dr. Hamied said poverty-racked India “can’t afford to divide people into those who can afford life-saving drugs and those who can’t”.

Promising future potential for low cost newer generic cancer drugs:  

While R&D initiatives are going on full throttle for newer and innovative drugs for cancer, interestingly over a quarter of the following 15 brands, which will go off-patent in 2013 are for cancer, throwing open the door for cheaper newer generics entry and increasing access to these medicine for a larger population of cancer patients.

Patent expiry in 2013

Rank	Brand	Generic name	Therapy Area	Company	Patent Expiry	Sales US$ billion (2012)
1.	Cymbalta	Duloxetine	Antidepressant, musculoskeletal pain	Eli Lilly/Shionogi	Dec 11	4.9
2.	Avonex	Interferon beta1a	Multiple Sclerosis (MS)	Biogen Idec	Dec 31	2.9
3.	Humalog	Insulin lispro	Anti-diabetic	Eli Lilly	May 7	2,52
4.	OxyContin	Oxycodone	Pain	Perdue	August 31,	2.35
5.	Rebif	Interferon beta-1a	Multiple Sclerosis (MS)	Merck KgaA	Dec 31	2.3
6.	Aciphex	Rabeprazole	Acid-peptic disorder	J&J, Eisai	May 8	1.93
7.	Xeloda	Capecitabin	Cancer	Roche	Dec 14	1.63
8.	Procrit	Epoetin Alfa	Anemia	J&J	Aug 29	1.41
9.	Neupogen	Filgrastim	Cancer	Amgen, Kirin, Roche, Royalty Pharma	Dec 12	1.29
10.	Zometa	Zoledronic Acid	Cancer	Novartis	March 2	1.26
11.	Lidoderm	Lidocaine patch 5%	Pain-relieving patch	Endo Health Solutions/ EpiCept	Sep 15	0.918
12.	Temodar	Temozolomide	Cancer	Merck, Bayer	Aug 31	0.882
13.	Asacol	Mesalamine	Ulcerative Colitis	Warner Chilcott, UCB, Zeria Pharma	Jul 30	0.891
14.	Niaspan	Niacin	Anti-lipid	Abbott, Teva	Sep 20	0.835
15	Reclast	Zoledronic acid injection	Osteoporosis	Novartis	March 02	0.612

(Source: Fierce Pharma)

A thought:

Initiatives for faster resolution of a pressing issue like providing affordable treatment for cancer should not be put in the back burner of a longer term planning process. The issue is very real, humanitarian, here and now, for all of us. The Government is expected to display some sense of urgency through its expeditious intervention in all the four of the following treatment processes for cancer to make them affordable, if not free for the general population:

Medical intervention and consultation
Diagnostic tests and detection
Surgical procedure and hospitalization
Medicines and chemotherapy

As ‘The Lancet” study mentions, cancer in India is all-pervasive. It has no rich or poor, urban or rural or even any gender bias. It needs to be addressed in a holistic way for the benefit of all.

Conclusion:

High incidence of cancer in India with even higher mortality rate, coupled with very high treatment cost has positioned this disease area in the eye of a stormy debate for quite some time. The naked fact that a large number of Indian population cannot afford the high treatment cost for cancer as ‘Out of Pocket’ expenditure, has made the issue even more sensitive and socially relevant in India.

Pricing issue for cancer drugs is not just India centric. Even in the developed countries, heated debate on expensive new drugs, especially, in the oncology segment is brewing up for a while. This could possibly assume a much larger proportion in not too distant future.

It is about time for also the private players to come forward and extend support to the Government in a joint endeavor to tame the destructibility and catastrophic effect of this dreaded disease on human lives, families and the society in general. Setting access improving tangible examples through Public Private Partnership (PPP) initiatives, rather than mere pontification of any kind, is the need of the hour.

If it does not happen, soon enough, willy-nilly the concerned players in this area may get caught in a much fiercer debate, possibly with a force multiplier effect, inviting more desperate measures by the Government.

Responsible pricing, for the patients’ sake, of each element of the cancer treatment process will ultimately assume a critical importance, not just for survival and progress of any business, but also to fetch pots of gold, as business return, from the ‘El Dorado’ of ‘Oncology Segment’ of India.

By: Tapan J. Ray

PILMAN

A Tapan Ray Website

Tag Archives: innovation

Drug, Patent and Hype: Quo Vadis Pharma Innovation?

R&D: Is Indian Pharma Moving Up the Value Chain?

Transparency in Drug Trial Data: Thwarted by Lobbyists or Embroiled in Controversy?

Balancing IPR with Public Health Interest: Brickbats, Power Play and Bouquets

It is now a widely accepted dictum that Intellectual Property Rights (IPR), especially pharma patents, help fostering innovation and is critical in meeting unmet needs of the patients.

However, the moot question still remains, what type pharmaceutical invention, should deserve market exclusivity or monopoly with overall freedom in pricing, keeping larger public health interest in mind.

However, pharmaceutical companies do argue that such ‘incremental innovations’ are the bedrock for growth of the pharmaceutical industry and are essential to continue to fund pharmaceutical research and development.

Experts, on the other hand, argue, if patents are granted to such ‘incremental innovations’ at all, their prices need to be determined by quantifying ‘Incremental Value’ that patients will derive out of these inventions as compared to the generic versions of respective original molecules.

Pharma Innovation Absolutely Critical: But NOT Shorn from Ethics, Propriety, Compliance and Values

Does the Landmark Glivec Judgment Discourage Innovation in India?

The R&D Factor: “One of the Great Myths of the Industry”

An El Dorado…But Not Without Responsible Pricing:The Cancer Segment in India