Tag Archives: Patent

Setting A Cost Of Time That Patients May Gain From A New Therapy

Posted on by
Reply

Since quite some, an intense ongoing debate about setting a cost of time, often by a few months, that patients could possibly gain from a new therapy for complex diseases. The answer still remains elusive.  Meanwhile, newer therapies for treating cancer, such as, Kymriah, priced at US$ 475,000, alongside several rare diseases, hit the market with jaw-dropping prices. The latest being - Zolgensma of Novartis, carrying a price tag of US$ 2.12 million – the most expensive treatment ever. This trend assumes greater significance as Bio – claimed as the world’s largest trade association representing biotechnology companies, and related organizations, across the United States and in more than 30 other nations, also makes some interesting points in this area.

This article will dwell on the relevance of this important issue, both in today’s and also in the future perspective. It will try to explore, why pharma and biotech companies are not keen to use a ‘transparent multi-factorial life-value calculator’, especially for prolonging life or curing an incurable disease, with a high-priced novel therapy.

Emotional ads to justify the trend, against tough practical questions: 

A part of a sleek looking advertisement from Bio, depicting the power of new therapies to prolong life, carries a headline – ‘Time. The Currency of Life,” followed by three emotive lines and two equally emotive questions: “Another decade with a spouse. A few more years with your best friend. A rich, fuller life rather than one cut short. How do we place value on these?” It then asks: “What is more precious? What is more priceless?”

Turning this emotive question on its head to a rational one, an article published in the Stat News on February 25, 2016 questioned: “How much is an extra month of life worth?” It asked the drug makers to calculate the same. The same article also quoted a Yale University economist and practicing radiologist asking: “It’s all well and good to just say life is priceless, but the reality is we are paying for it.”

Emotive ads try to justify funding towards innovation for such drugs:

The same advertisement, as above, while trying to indirectly justify such exorbitant drug costs, used yet another emotive note in its playbook. It emphasized: “By continuing to fund the innovation pipeline that has served us so well, we will be able to reduce the costs associated with modern-day health care.”

Such claims are being scientifically challenged – head on, by many important studies. To illustrate this point, I shall quote the following two, both were published in the JAMA Network. The first one in the JAMA Otolaryngology-Head & Neck Surgery and the next one in JAMA Oncology.

The first article is the ‘John Conley Lecture’, carrying a title, ‘Unintended Consequences of Expensive Cancer Therapeutics—The Pursuit of Marginal Indications and a Me-Too Mentality That Stifles Innovation and Creativity,’ appeared on December 2014. On innovative drugs of such genre, the paper concluded: “The use of expensive therapies with marginal benefits for their approved indications and for unproven indications is contributing to the rising cost of cancer care. We believe that expensive therapies are stifling progress, by:

  • Encouraging enormous expenditures of time, money, and resources on marginal therapeutic indications and
  • Promoting a me-too mentality that is stifling innovation and creativity.

The second article is an ‘original investigation, titled ‘Assessment of Overall Survival, Quality of Life, and Safety Benefits Associated with New Cancer Medicines.’ It also underscored: ‘Although innovation in the oncology drug market has contributed to improvements in therapy, the magnitude and dimension of clinical benefits vary widely, and there may be reasons to doubt that claims of efficacy reflect real-world effectiveness exactly.’

Here again, the emotional appeal is being made by creating a ‘perfect World’ scenario. Whereas, scientific analysis of the innovative and high-priced drugs, reveals the reality for other stakeholders to take note of. Different pharma trade associations, although being a part of the same orchestrated effort, try differently to take the eyes off the humongous prices of new life-saving drugs. But many continue to believe that new cancer drug prices have long gone beyond control.

90 percent Biopharma companies do not earn a profit – A bizarre claim?

As is well-known, besides justifying high drug prices by highlighting ‘high R&D cost,’ drug manufacturers often say, as the Bio ad campaign makes an eyebrow raising claim – “Of the approximately 1,200 Biopharma companies in the United States, more than 90 percent do not earn a profit.”

Citing the example of the US market where drug prices are very high, it justifies, the general focus on list prices of the drugs is misplaced. This is because, the ‘manufacturers provide billions of dollars in rebates and discounts on their innovative therapies annually, to federal, state and private payors, in addition to offering direct assistance through patient assistance programs.’ It further added, these discounts vary but can result into a significant total of as much as 50 percent or greater depending on the program.

Experts have challenged even this claim that the list prices do matter, even in the US, for many, including uninsured population and those with co-payment arrangement, which are not based on the discounted prices. Leaving aside America, what happens in those countries, such as India, where out-of-pocket expenses on health care are considered the highest in the world?

With new cancer drug prices going beyond control, the price of postponing death is growing:

That the new cancer drug prices have long gone beyond control, isn’t a new realization. A research paper, published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology on May 06, 2013, also noted emphatically: ‘Allowing the producer-dominated market to set drug prices has spiraled the cost of cancer drugs out of control.’  So did another 2015 study, published in the Journal of Economic Perspective.

According to various studies, such as the one published in the JAMA Otolaryngology-Head & Neck Surgery, as quoted above, also found after studying over 70 of such new drugs that the median improvement in survival was around 2.1months. Some other reports indicated this number to be around 3.5 months on an average.

Interestingly, the 2015 study, published in the Journal of Economic Perspective found that ‘the price of postponing death is growing. In 2013, one extra year of life for cancer patients costs US$ 207,000, on average, nearly quadruple what it did in 1995.

Is it quality of life over the quantity of life, or vice versa?

The above findings may lead one to the critical question – what type of treatment choice would create the most desirable net impact on individual cancer patients? This evaluation should include all the three parameters – the extent of prolongation of the ‘Length of Life (LoL)’, the ‘Quality of Life (QoL)’ the patients experience during this period – and the additional drug cost that needs to be incurred.

It should ideally be up to patients whether they will choose quality over quantity of life or vice versa. To facilitate this process, an informed briefing by the doctor on the most likely scenario, vis-à-vis other available treatment alternatives, is expected to help individual cancer patient exercise the best affordable individual option.

This point was scientifically addressed in a research article - ‘Quality of life versus length of life considerations in cancer patients: A systematic literature review,’ published in the Journal of Psycho-Oncology on May 15, 2019. The study noted, ‘Patients with cancer face difficult decisions regarding treatment and also the possibility of trading the Quality of Life (QoL) for Length of Life (LoL).’ Little information is available on patients’ preferences in this regard, including ‘the personal costs they are prepared to exchange to extend their life.’

Another related question that also remains equally elusive, is the relationship between the cost of a medication and the amount of quality-time that it offers to patients. Quantifiable assessment of such nature could bring more transparency in drug pricing, especially for those that help treat life-threatening ailments, such as cancer.

Similar questions are raised on pricey therapy for rare diseases:

The cost of drugs for rare diseases is threatening the health care system – articulated an article, published in the Harvard Business Review (HBR) on April 07, 2017. The paper stated, in December 2016, US-FDA announced the market approval of nusinersen (sold as “Spinraza”), an effective Spinal Muscular Atrophy (SMA) treatment licensed to Biogen by Ionis Pharmaceuticals. SMA is considered the most common genetic cause of infant mortality.

As the author penned, “Patients and providers greeted the approval with near ecstasy, but the celebration was bittersweet. Five days after the FDA approved, the drug, Biogen announced each dose would cost US$ 125,000. Given that patients need six doses in the first year and three per year after that, it means the drug costs US$ 750,000 per patient in the first year and US$ 375,000 annually thereafter.”

A desperate father’s reaction for the price – and the economics behind it:

The HBR article captured the reaction of the father of an infant on this price, who is desperate to save the baby – in the following words – “Then there’s Will’s heartbreaking reaction, which I’m sure echoes the sentiments of many touched by SMA. – “The Biogen announcement of the cost of nusinersen floored me in every way possible,” he says. “Words cannot describe the sickening feeling I get when I think about it.” If this could be a father’s reaction in America, one can well imagine what happens in a similar situation to people in the developing world.

At that time, Zolgensma of Novartis, wearing a price tag of US$ 2.12 million for treatment of the same disease, was also shaping up for market launch. On this drug, the author of this HBR article who also happened to be a professor, vice chair of research, and chief of the Division of Neuromuscular Medicine at the University of Utah School of Medicine, wrote: “A very promising gene therapy for SMA is on the horizon, which would require only one dose and potentially render nusinersen obsolete. Did such mercenary economics influence Biogen’s pricing decision? We may never know; drug companies are not required to justify their prices.” On the contrary, as many believe, the concerned global CEOs, reportedly, get a hefty financial reward, for the same.

Conclusion:

It is not difficult to understand either, that some drugs, especially for rare diseases, will be used for treating a smaller number of patients. Hence, the optimal economies of scale in manufacturing can’t be attained. At the same time, the cost of R&D of the therapy needs to be recouped along with a reasonable profit, for investment towards future drugs. This is in addition to market exclusivity the drug will enjoy through patent thicket.

Nevertheless, despite the existence of several methods of a human life value calculation, such as in the insurance industry the use of a transparent and drug industry specific, multi-factorial live-value calculator is still not in vogue. As the drug industry often highlights, the ‘value of human life is priceless’ – regardless of the costs of drugs. In this situation, many industry experts, academics and patient groups advocate that the ongoing uncontrolled pricing mechanism for such medicines should be brought under a leash. This could come in the form of a tough price negotiation’ before the drug marketing approval, as was promised by the Government, or putting in place a stringent price regulatory system.

Be that as it may, the bottom line is to understand and find an answer to: ‘Why Does Medicine Cost So Much?’ This issue was analyzed by the Time Magazine in its April 09, 2019 edition. Quoting Dr. Aaron Kesselheim, an associate professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, it emphasized: It all starts with the manufacturers. There are essentially no regulations governing how new drugs are priced – drug companies select a price what they “believe the market will bear.” Blockbuster first-in-class treatments, therefore, command a stratospheric price, like what happened with Gilead’s hepatitis medication – Sovaldi, way back in 2013. It was priced at US$ 1,000 a pill, or US $84,000 for the full course of treatment. From this perspective, although, setting a cost of time that patients may gain from a new therapy has a moral and ethical relevance – but actually, it doesn’t seem to be business-friendly in the drug industry.

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.

Spirit Behind Drug Patent Grant: Secondary Patents: Impact on Drug Access

Posted on by
Reply

For more effective treatment against existing diseases, besides combating new or a more complicated form of existing ailments with precision, drug innovation is absolutely necessary and on an ongoing basis. This makes innovative drugs so important for the population, globally.

Besides academia, the pharma industry has remained in the forefront of the search for new drugs, for so long. What makes this process so crucial is, cheaper generic drugs flow from the innovative drugs, post market exclusivity period, which together form the bedrock of the pharma industry’s business model. Consequently, a robust patent protection for the new molecular entities, not only enable the drug innovators to make a reasonably good profit, but also encourage them to keep this virtuous circle moving, faster.

Although, the drug patents are granted for 20 years, after obtaining marketing approval from the respective drug regulators, a time period - ranging between 7 and 12 years, is available to the company to realize its maximum commercial benefits. Thereafter, the patent expires, paving the way of market entry of cheaper generic equivalents to make the drug accessible to a larger population. This is the playbook, which deserves to be accepted and respected by all, both in the letter and spirit.

Currently, the narrative has started changing, apparently, repudiating the spirit behind the grant of new drug patents, especially with the entry of a number of expensive, large molecule biopharmaceutical drugs. After obtaining a fixed-term market exclusivity, more intricate legal measures are being taken to extend the fixed-term market monopoly for an unknown period, delaying market entry of cheaper biosimilar equivalents, post patent expiry, as long as possible.

In this milieu, India appears to be the only country in the world, where the country’s ‘Patents Act’ provides enough safeguard to blunt those legal tools, effectively, to protect patients’ health interest. Quite expectedly, this new narrative of the drug innovators is yielding the best return in the Eldorado of the pharma world – the Unites States. It is also no secret that US vehemently opposes several provisions of the Indian Patents Act 2005, under pressure from the most powerful pharma lobby group, as many believe.

Using the spirit behind drug patent protection as the backdrop, I shall dwell in this article, how this so precious spirit is gradually losing its basic purpose, especially for blockbuster biopharma drugs. Is the key intent behind sacrificing the spirit behind drug patent grant to keep their brands money spinners and big – even after expiry of original patent – as long as possible – at the cost of patients’ health interest?

Despite the original patent expiry, biggest biologic drugs remain big:

The fact that original patent expiries have done little to halt sales of some of the industry’s biggest products – mostly biologic drugs, was clearly elucidated in an  Evaluate Pharma article – “Biopharma’s biggest sellers – the oldies that just keep giving,” published on August 14, 2019. This gets vindicated, as we look at the ‘top ten pharma brands with biggest lifetime sales – from launch to 2018’, in the following Table I:

Product Company Launch year USD Billion
1. Lipitor Pfizer 1997 164.43
2 Humira AbbVie 2003 136.55
3. Rituxan Genentech/Biogen 1997 111.50
4. Enbrel Amgen 1998 108.16
5. Epogen Amgen 1988 107.90
6. Advair GSK 1998 104.20
7. Remicade Janssen 1998   98.00
8. Zantac GSK 1981   97.42
9. Plavix Sanofi/BMS 1998   90.63
10. Herceptin Genentech/Roche 1998   87.97

(Adapted from Evaluate Pharma data of August 14, 2019)

The point to take note of:

The point worth noting here, with the exception of Advair, Zantac, Lipitor and Plavix, all others – among the top ten brands, are biologic drugs. Moreover, what is most striking in the Table I, despite the expiry of the original patents, a large number of biologic brands were able to expand their sales, pretty impressively, for well over two decades. As we shall see later, this situation is expected to continue, at least, till 2024.  As the Evaluate Pharma article states, for various reasons, these multibillion dollar brands have been able to avoid the expected post patent expiry ‘onslaught from biosimilars in the key US market’, which is incidentally the most valuable pharma market in the world.

One of the key reasons that helps delaying cheaper biosimilar drug entry expanding patient access, is a crafty strategic measure adopted by these companies through the creation of a Patent Thicket with secondary patents. As I discussed in this Blog on April 22, 2019, this is a crafty way of ‘evergreening’ patent term beyond 20 years, legally. Whether such measures conform to the spirit of granting 20 years product patent, becomes a moral question, or an issue of probity for the concerned companies, at the most. Be that as it may, a concern over this situation has been raised in many countries, including the United States.

Barrier of secondary patents: 

Biosimilar drug developers continue facing multiple non-financial challenges, such as, scientific, regulatory, pricing. I have already discussed some of these barriers in this blog on July 31, 2017. Instead, I shall focus in this article, with greater detail, on the intricate and a well-woven net of secondary patents. However,before delving into this area, it will be worthwhile to have a quick recap on the basic differences between original patents and secondary patents.

According to WIPO, “Patents on active ingredients are referred to as primary patents. In later phases of the drug development, patents are filed on other aspects of active ingredients such as different dosage forms, formulations, production methods etc. These types of patents are referred to as secondary patents.”

Another excellent paper, authored by two distinguished researchers from Columbia University and LSE, makes some important points on this subject. It says, secondary patents have become increasingly important to the pharma industry, especially in the U.S. and Europe over the past three decades. The basic purpose of ‘taking out multiple patents on different aspects of a drug in order to cordon off competitors is now standard practice in the pharmaceutical industry.’ As the authors further said, this is primarily because: ‘Secondary patents can protect market shares by extending periods of exclusivity beyond the dates in which patent protection would otherwise lapse.’

Interestingly. devising patent strategies to extend periods of market exclusivity is generally considered in the industry, as a key component of ‘product life cycle management,’ – not by the marketing whiz kids, but by astute patent attorneys. Nevertheless, as the paper articulates, critics of this practice often use the more pejorative – evergreening, to describe it.

Examples of impact of secondary patents:

Many research papers suggest, besides scientific complexity in biosimilar drug development being a key reason for their delayed market entry, secondary patents are even tougher barriers for the same. This was brought to light a few years ago in a ‘Review Article’ – ‘The Economics of Biosimilars’, published in the September/October 2013 issue of American Health & Drug Benefits.

Some of the key points made on this issue include,AbbVie plan to defend Humira (adalimumab) with more than 200 secondary patents, Merck’s giving up its biosimilar project on Enbrel when Amgen got its expanded patent life. There are many other such instances.

Its effect would last longer: 

Experts believe, the effect of creating a strong secondary patent shield around blockbuster biologic would last much longer. As the above Evaluate Pharma article underscores: ‘This ability to fend off biosimilar competition is one of the reasons Humira is set to snatch Lipitor’s crown next year as the industry’s most successful drug.’

The Table II below that lists ‘top 10 pharma brands from their respective launch date, including estimated forecast till 2024’, vindicates its long-lasting impact:

Product Company Launch year USD Billion
1. Humira AbbVie 2003 240.05
2 Lipitor Pfizer 1997 180.19
3. Enbrel Amgen 1998 139.83
4. Rituxan Genentech/Biogen 1997 136.07
5. Revlimid Celgene 2008 123.64
6. Remicade Janssen 1998 117.20
7. Epogen Amgen 1988 115.87
8. Herceptin Genentech/Roche 1998 114.89
9. Avastin Genentech/Roche 2004 114.27
10. Advair GSK 1998 113.61

(Adapted from Evaluate Pharma data of August 14, 2019)

Although, Zantac and Plavix no longer feature in this table, one drug that leapfrogged much of the competition to become one of the industry’s biggest future bestsellers is Revlimid. The projected sales of the drug over the next six years will actually outstrip its sales to date. However, much of this is dependent on whether generic competition will arrive ahead of Revlimid’s 2022 patent expiry, the paper indicated.

Concern expressed even in the US for the delay in biosimilar market entry:

Many big spending countries on health care, such as the United States expected that timely biosimilar drug entry will help contain health expenditure significantly. However, the article published in the Fierce Pharma on August 29, 2019, raises an alarm, but with a hope for the future. It says: “It’s no secret biosimilars haven’t made a big dent in U.S. drug spending. Some experts have even said it’s time to give up on copycat biologic.”

This hope gets resonated with what, ‘the former US-FDA commissioner Scott Gottlieb argues’. He feels, ‘It’s too soon for that’, while ‘calling on Congress to bolster the budding market.’ However, in my personal view, this will remain a difficult proposition to implement, as biologic drug players will continue using their relatively new, but powerful weapon of filing a number of complex ‘secondary patents.’ These will help extend the market exclusivity period of their respective brands, much beyond the original patent grant period, unless a counter legal measures are taken by the lawmakers of various countries, including the United States. But, India is an exception in this regard.

Indian patent law doesn’t encourage ‘secondary patents’:

The good news is, Indian Patent Act 2005, doesn’t encourage ‘secondary patent.’ This is because, section 3 (d) of the Indian Patent Act 2005 limits grant of ‘secondary pharmaceutical patents.’ An interesting study reported on February 08, 2018, discussed about 1,700 rejections for pharma patents at the IPO spanning over the last decade. But, there is a huge scope for improvement in this area.

Which is why, the not so good news is under-utilization of the same section 3.d by the Indian Patent Office (IPO), as are being voiced in many reports. One such paper of April 25, 2018 highlighted,72 per cent of pharma patent grants are secondary patents. These were granted for marginal improvements over previously known drugs for which primary patents exist. That said, despite such reported lapses, blocking of some crucial secondary patent grant has benefited a large number of patient population of India.

Blocking secondary patent grant has helped India immensely:

While US recognizes secondary patents, blocking secondary patent grant, especially for biologic drugs has helped Indian patients immensely, with expanded access to those medicines. This was also captured in the above study. Besides the classic case of Novartis losing its secondary patent challenge for Glivec in the Supreme Court of India in 2013, several other examples of secondary patent rejection are also available. This includes, among others, Glivec of Novartis and the world’s top selling drug for several years – Humira of AbbVie.Against a month’s therapy cost of ₹1,6o, ooo for Glivec in the US, its Indian biosimilar version costs for the same period ₹11,100. Similarly, while the treatment cost with Humira in the US is ₹85,000, the same with its biosimilar version in India is ₹ 13,500, as the above study finds.

Conclusion:

The core purpose of drug innovation, as widely touted by the R&D-based drug companies, is meeting the unmet needs of patients in the battles against diseases. Thus, drug innovation of this genre must not just be encouraged, but also be adequately protected and rewarded by granting product monopoly for a 20-year period from the date of the original patent grant. Curiously, piggybacking on this basic spirit behind the drug patent grant, pharma lobby groups are now vocal on their demand for giving similar treatment to secondary patents on various molecules. The tone of demand gets shriller when it comes to section 3. d of the Indian Patents Act, which doesn’t allow such ‘evergreening’ through secondary patents.

Thus, the key question that surfaces, while the original patent grant for innovative drugs help meeting unmet needs of some patients, whose unmet needs would a secondary patent grant meet, except making the concerned company richer? Further, for highly expensive biologic drugs, delayed market entry of cheaper biosimilars in that process, would deny their expanded access – failing to meet the unmet needs of scores of others.

Hopefully, India won’t give in to pressure of multinational pharma lobby groups, channeled through various powerful overseas government entities. At the same time, I hope, the government in power at the Eldorado of the pharma industry, will consider giving a fair chance of market entry to cheaper biosimilars, including those from India, to also grow their business globally, but in a win-win way.

The key objective of all stakeholders involved in this process, should be to uphold the basic spirit behind drug patent grant. It may even call for challenging the core intent behind secondary patent applications, the world over, that deny quicker market entry for cheaper biosimilars, sans heavy litigation expenses. This will help expand access to cheaper biologic medicines to all those who can’t afford those, otherwise.

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.

 

 

 

 

Will ‘Patent Thicket’ Delay Biosimilar Drug Entry in India?

Posted on by
Reply

Do pharma and biotech investors encourage companies indulging in ‘patent thicket?’ This question recently grabbed media headlines. On April 02, 2019, one such report brought out: AbbVie investors are calling for the Chair-CEO power split, flagging the CEO’s USD 4 million bonus payout, fueled by the company’s Humira ‘patent thicket’ strategy related aggressive price hikes. It prolonged the brand’s market monopoly, blocking entries of its cheaper biosimilar equivalents.

I have discussed some related issues in this blog, previously. As the issue is gaining relevance also in the Indian context, this article will deliberate the ill-effects of ‘patent thicket’ on patient health-interest. The sole beneficiaries for the creation of this self-serving labyrinth are the manufacturers of high-priced patented drugs, as reported above. Before I proceed further, let me recapitulate what exactly is a ‘patent thicket.’

‘Patent Thicket’:

The dictionary definition of patent thicket is: ‘A group of patents in a field of technology which collectively impede a party from commercializing its own patents or products in that field.’In the current context, it means a dense web of overlapping patent rights that restrict a generic or a biosimilar drug maker from commercializing its cheaper equivalents post expiry of the original patent.

This scenario has been well-captured by the above media report, which states: “AbbVie leadership has also been accused of creating a ‘patent thicket’ in its battle to stave off biosimilar competitors to Humira.” Boehringer Ingelheim is among the few still fighting AbbVie’s ‘patent thicket’ hoping to launch its Humira biosimilar - Cyltezo, even after receiving US-FDA approval on August 29, 2017. ‘Top biosimilar makers, including Novartis’ Sandoz unit and Mylan, have settled their own Humira patent fights with deals that put off launches until 2023,’ the report indicated.

In its favor: AbbVie says, Cyltezo infringes about 70 patents the company currently holds for Humira. Whereas, ‘Boehringer’s lawyers say AbbVie’s copious patents overlapped in an attempt to exclude competitors from the market.’ Notably, in March this year, New York’s UFCW Local 1500 Welfare Fund, reportedly, also accused AbbVie of using overlapping patents to exclude biosimilars.

‘Patent thicket’ – a way of ‘evergreening’ beyond 20 years patent term:

Much concern is being raised about various ploys of especially by the drug MNC and their lobby groups – directly or under a façade, to delay entry of cheaper generic drugs for greater patient access. Mostly the following two ways are followed for patent ‘evergreening’ beyond the term of 20 years:

  • ‘Incremental innovation’ of the existing patented drugs through molecular manipulation, with its clinical performance and safety profile remaining similar to the original one. As the cost benefits of such drugs are not shared with patients, cannibalizing the sales of the older molecular version with the newer one highlighting its newness, the sales revenue can be protected. With this approach, coupled with marketing muscle power with deep-pocket the impact of generic entry of the older version can almost be made redundant. For example: Omeprazole was first marketed in 1989 by AstraZeneca, under the brand name Losec (later changed to Prilosec at the behest of the US-FDA). When Prilosec’s US patent expired in April 2001, AstraZeneca introduced esomeprazole (Nexium) as a patented replacement drug. Both are nearly identical in their clinical efficacy and safety.
  • ‘Patent thicket’ is yet another tool for ‘evergreening’, delaying launch of similar drugs, or resorting to ‘pay for delay’ sort of deals. As another recent report reiterates, AbbVie’s ‘patent thicket’ for Humira, has deterred other potential challengers, such as Amgen, Samsung Bioepis and most recently Mylan, each of which struck settlements with AbbVie to delay their biosimilar challenges in the United States.

Goes against patients’ health interest:

On May 09, 2018, the Biosimilars Council reported, just as generic medicines saved Americans USD 1.67 trillion in the last decade, biosimilars are poised to do the same – ‘if they aren’t thwarted by delaying tactics instituted by some pharmaceutical companies.’ Echoing similar concern, the outgoing US-FDA Commissioner Scott Gottlieb also, reportedly said, ‘some drugmakers are using unacceptable tactics such as litigation and rebate schemes to stall the entry of cheaper copies.’

‘Of the nine biosimilars the FDA has approved to date, only three have made it into the hands of patients – an alarmingly small number. Patients can’t access the six others due to barriers thrown in their way by pharmaceutical companies that want to protect their monopolies and keep prices high,’ highlights the Biosimilars Council report. Net sufferer of this self-serving ‘patent thicket’ strategy of pharma and biotech players to extend product patents beyond 20 years, are those patients who need these drugs the most – to save their lives.

Despite law, patent ‘evergreening’ still not uncommon in India:

With section (3d) on the Indian Patents Act 2005 in place, the country is expected to protect itself from patent ‘evergreening’ through ‘incremental innovation.’ This section articulates:“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.”

On this ground, Indian Patent Office (IPO) rejected Novartis’ drug Glivec (imatinib mesylate) patent application, which was ultimately upheld by the Supreme Court in 2013. Nevertheless, a study report of April 30, 2018 emphasized: ‘Though the law with regard to anti-evergreening, upheld and clarified by Indian courts, remains on the books, its application by the IPO has been far from satisfactory.’

The esteemed author of the report, after analyzing about 2,300 drug patents, granted between 2009 and 2016 concluded that evergreening practices may be rampant in India. The report pointed out, ‘the IPO could be operating with an error rate as high as 72 percent for secondary patents, despite provisions to keep them in check.’

Are these IPO’s mistakes, or due to external pressure?

As the paper, published in the January 2016 edition of the Journal of Intellectual Property Rights (JIPR) said,‘The multi-national pharma companies (MNCs) and the US-India Business Council (USIBC) have suggested in their report for elimination of Section 3 (d) so that drug patents can be granted in India for incremental improvement and modification. As per US 301 report, India is listed among countries with inadequate IP regime.’ Keeping all these aspects into consideration, the article expressed some key concerns pertaining to the impact of Section 3 (d) with special emphasis on its interpretation. Does it mean any possibility of wilting under such extraneous and high impact pressure?

A fresh pressure from drug MNC on the DCGI:

Since long drug MNCs have been attempting to delay the entry of even those generics, which are fully compliant with the Indian Patent Law 2005. One such effort was their demand for ‘patent linkage’ with the marketing approval of new generic drugs. However, it could not pass through legal scrutiny – first by the Delhi High Court in the Bayer Cipla case in 2010, and then by the Supreme Court – on the same case. The Court, reportedly, ‘noted the Indian patent system was distinct from the drug regulatory system with no linkage between them and so Bayer can’t prevent DCGI from granting marketing approval to generic versions of patented drugs.’

According to another recent media report of April 04, 2019, in a fresh endeavor ‘to delay launch of low priced generic medicine, multinational drug makers have asked the government to create a registry providing information about all drug applications pending manufacturing and marketing approval. The proposal, which is still pending with the Department of Pharmaceuticals (DoP), if accepted, could involve the generic players into expensive and time-consuming litigations, delaying early market entry of the cheaper generic or biosimilar equivalents.

To date, the health ministry has opposed the proposal, as it will be “unfair to local drug manufacturers to disclose their product strategy” and also has “the potential to substantially increase health care costs for the public.” The government further argued, “such information about product applications filed for approval are not disclosed anywhere in the world.”

India encourages new drug innovation, but not at any cost:

Despite shrill and disparaging comments of MNC lobbyists and the strong vested interests, that India’s Patent Law 2005, doesn’t encourage innovation, many independent international experts do praise the same for the following reasons:

  • Does encourage new drug innovation
  • Does extend product exclusivity for twenty years
  • Strikes a right balance with patients’ health interest
  • Indian judicial system deals with patient infringements and disputes, just as any other developed countries
  • Even 14 years after the enactment of patent laws, just one compulsory license has been granted, which is much less than other countries, including the United States.

What India doesn’t legally allow is, unfettered profit making through ‘evergreening of drug patents’ – at the cost of millions of patients-lives. Nonetheless, powered by deep pockets, the pharma and biotech players are unlikely to cease from this practice, anytime soon. Only patient-awareness, and stringent counter-legal measures can contain this unfair game of drug monopoly practices – in the name of ‘encouraging innovation’.

Conclusion:

The article titled, ‘Over patented, overpriced: How Excessive Pharmaceutical Patenting is Extending Monopolies and Driving up Drug Prices’ revealed:“Top grossing drugs have on average 125 patent applications, which are filed with a strategic intent to extend the commercial monopolies far beyond the intended twenty years of protection.” It also quoted American President Donald Trump as saying, “Our patent system will reward innovation, but it will not be used as a shield to protect unfair monopolies.”

Coming back to ‘patent thicket’ and the same classic case, another report of March 20, 2019 indicated, a new class action lawsuit filed by New York’s largest grocery union has accused AbbVie of violating antitrust and consumer protection laws, which AbbVie has defended by saying that its patent strategy for Humira has protected the investments that are necessary to “advance healthcare.”

Pharma and biotech companies’ maintaining patent monopolies far beyond twenty years has significant consequences on India’s healthcare system. Only patent lawyers and experts can possibly answer whether or not the Indian Patent Law 2005 can effectively deal with the practice of ‘evergreening’ with patent thicket. Intriguingly, taking a cue from recent developments, it seems many pharma and biotech investors too, deem ‘patent thicket’ rather distracting for longer-term undiluted focus on new product development, and sustainable investors’ return.

That apart, the question also comes, whether just as ‘antitrust and consumer protection laws’ in the US, the Competition Law of India will be able to do contain such unfair practices? Otherwise, with MNC lobbyists’ renewed activities in this area, ‘patent thicket’, especially for expensive biologic drugs, will delay market-entry of their cheaper biosimilar versions in India, as well, just as what is happening in the developed nations.

By: Tapan J. Ray   

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

Is India A Success Story With Biosimilar Drugs?

Posted on by
Reply

How Indian generic companies are expanding, if not shifting their business focus on biosimilar and complex generic drugs, may be a current trend of general discourse – but the initiative is not a current one. This journey commenced decades ago with an eye on the future. In those days, Indian players were already dominating the global markets of small molecule generic drugs. Interestingly, it started much before the big global players decided to enter into this segment – especially post patent expiry of large molecule blockbuster drugs.

This strategy not just exhibits a sound business rationale, but also benefits patients with affordable access to biosimilar versions of high cost biologic drugs. In this article, I shall dwell on this subject, basically to understand whether India is a success story with large molecule biosimilar drugs, both in terms of drug development, and also in its commercial performance.

India’s journey began with the dawn of the new millennium:

About two decades back from now, some Indian pharma companies decided to step into an uncharted frontier of large molecule biosimilar drugs. According to the ‘Generics and Biosimilars Initiative (GaBI)’, in 2000 – the first biosimilar drug, duly approved by the Drug Controller General of India (DCGI), was launched in the country.  This was hepatitis B vaccine from Wockhardt – Biovac-B.

I hasten to add, in those years, there were no specific regulatory pathways for approval of large molecule biosimilar drugs in India. Thus, the same marketing approval guidelines as applicable to small molecule generic drugs, used to be followed by the DCGI for this purpose. Specific guidelines for biosimilar drugs were implemented on September 15, 2012, which was subsequently updated in August 2016. To date, around 70 large molecule biosimilar drugs, including biopharmaceuticals, have been introduced in India, as the GaBI list indicates.

It is equally important to note that well before any other countries, domestic pharma companies launched in India, AbbVie’s blockbuster Humira (adalimumab) and Roche’s breast cancer treatment Herceptin (trastuzumab). In this context, it is worth mentioning that US-FDA approved the first biosimilar product, Zarxio (filgrastim-sndz), in March 2015.

Will India be a key driver for global biosimilar market growth?

According to the Grand View Research Report of July 2018, increasing focus on biosimilar product development in countries, such as India, China and South Korea, is a major growth driver of the global biosimilar market. As this report indicates, the global biosimilars market size was valued at USD 4.36 billion in 2016, which is expected to record a CAGR of 34.2 percent during 2018-25 period.

Europe has held the largest revenue market share due to a well-defined regulatory framework for biosimilars was in place there for quite some time, and was followed by Asia Pacific (AP), in 2016. Growing demand for less expensive therapeutic products and high prevalence of chronic diseases in the AP region are expected to contribute to the regional market growth – the report highlighted.

Further, the Report on ‘Country-wise biosimilar pipelines number in development worldwide 2017’ of Statista also indicated that as of October 2017, India has a pipeline of 257 biosimilar drugs, against 269 of China, 187 of the United States, 109 of South Korea, 97 of Russia and 57 of Switzerland. However, post 2009 – after biosimilar regulatory pathway was established in the United States, the country has gained significant momentum in this segment, presenting new opportunities and also some challenges to biosimilar players across the world.

Is Indian biosimilar market growth enough now?

An important point to ponder at this stage: Is Indian biosimilar market growth good enough as of now, as compared to its expected potential? Against the backdrop of India’s global success with generic drugs – right from the initial stages, the current biosimilar market growth is certainly not what it ought to be. Let me illustrate this point by drawing an example from theAssociated Chambers of Commerce of India’s October 2016 White Paper.

According to the Paper, biosimilars were worth USD 2.2 billion out of the USD 32 billion of the Indian pharmaceutical market, in 2016, and is expected to reach USD 40 billion by 2030. This represents a CAGR of 30 percent. A range of biologic patent expiry in the next few years could add further fuel to this growth.

A similar scenario prevails in the global market, as well. According to Energias Market Research report of August 2018, ‘the global biosimilar market is expected to grow significantly from USD 3,748 million in 2017 to USD 34,865 million in 2024, at a CAGR of 32.6 percent from 2018 to 2024.’

Many other reports also forecast that the future of biosimilar drugs would be dramatically different. For example, the ‘World Preview 2017, Outlook to 2022 Report’ of Evaluate Pharma estimated that the entry of biosimilars would erode the total sales of biologics by as much as 54 percent through 2022, in the global markets. It further elaborated that biologic sales may stand to lose up to USD 194 billion as several top blockbuster biologic drugs will go off-patent during this period.

Although, current growth rate of the biosimilar market isn’t at par with expectations, there is a reasonable possibility of its zooming north, both in India and the overseas markets, in the near future. However, I would put a few riders for this to happen, some of which are as follows:

Some uncertainties still exist:

I shall not discuss here the basic barriers that restrict entry of too many players in this segment, unlike small molecule generics. Some of which are – requisite scientific and regulatory expertise, alongside wherewithal to create a world class manufacturing facility a complex nature. Keeping those aside, there are some different types of uncertainties, which need to be successfully navigated to succeed with biosimilars. To get an idea of such unpredictability, let me cite a couple of examples, as hereunder:

1. Unforeseen patent challenges, manufacturing and regulatory issues:

  • Wherewithal to effectively navigate through any unexpected labyrinth of intricate patent challenges, which are very expensive and time-consuming. It may crop up even during the final stages of development, till drug marketing, especially in potentially high profit developed markets, like for biosimilars of Humira (AbbVie) in the United States or for Roche’s Herceptin and Avastin in India.
  • It is expensive, time consuming and risk-intensive to correct even a minor modification or unforeseen variation in the highly controlled manufacturing environment to maintain quality across the system, to ensure high product safety. For example, what happened to Biocon and Mylan with Herceptin Biosimilar. As the production volume goes up, the financial risk becomes greater.
  • There are reports that innovator companies may make access to supplies of reference products difficult, which are so vital for ‘comparability testing and clinical trials.’  This could delay the entire process of development of biosimilar drugs, inviting a cost and time-overrun.
  • Current regulatory requirements in various countries may not be exactly the same, involving significant additional expenditure for overseas market access.

2. User-perception of biosimilar drugs:

Studies on perception of biosimilar vis-à-vis originator’s biologic drugs have brought out that many prescribing physicians still believe that there can be differences between originator’s biologic medicine and their biosimilar equivalents. With drug safety being the major concern of patients, who trust their physician’s decision to start on or switch to a biosimilar, this dilemma gets often translated into doctors’ preferring the originator’s product to its biosimilar version. One such study was published in the September 2017 issue of Bio Drugs. Thus, the evolution of the uptake of biosimilars could also depend mainly on similar perception of physicians.

What happens if this perception continues?

Whereas, the W.H.O and drug regulators in different countries are quite clear about comparable safety and efficacy between the originator’s product and its biosimilar variety, some innovator companies’ position on biosimilar drug definition, could help creating a perception that both are not being quite the same, both in efficacy and safety.

To illustrate this point, let me reproduce below how a top ranked global pharma company - Amgen, defines biosimilar drugs, starting with a perspective of biologic medicines:

“Biologic medicines have led to significant advances in the treatment of patients with serious illnesses.These medicines are large, complex molecules that are difficult to manufacture because they are made in living cells grown in a laboratory. It is impossible for a different manufacturer to make an exact replica of a biologic medicine due to several factors, including the inherent complexity of biologics and the proprietary details of the manufacturing process for the original biologic medicine, often referred to as the reference product.It is because of this that copies of biological products are referred to as “biosimilars”; they are highly SIMILAR but not identical to the biologic upon which they are based.”

Could dissemination of the above concept through a mammoth sales and marketing machine to the target audience, lead to creating a better perception that the originators’ biologic drugs are better than their biosimilar genre?

Other realities:

Despite the availability of a wide array of biosimilar drugs, the prescription pattern of these molecules is still very modest, even in India. One of its reasons, as many believe, these are still not affordable to many, due to high out-of-pocket drug expenses in India.

Thus, where other biosimilars of the same category already exist, competitive domestic pricing would play a critical role for faster market penetration, as happens with small molecule generic drugs.

Another strategic approach to address cost aspect of the issue, is to explore possibilities of sharing the high cost and risks associated with biosimilar drug development, through collaborative arrangements with global drug companies. One good Indian example in this area is Biocon’s collaboration with Mylan.

Conclusion:

The question on whether Indian biosimilar market growth is good enough, assumes greater importance, specifically against the backdrop of domestic players’ engagement in this segment, since around last two decades. Apart from the important perception issue with biosimilars , these medicines are still not affordable to many in India, owing to high ‘out of pocket’ drug expenditure. Just focusing on the price difference between original biologic drugs and their biosimilars, it is unlikely to get this issue resolved. There should be enough competition even within biosimilars to drive down the price, as happened earlier with small molecule generics.

That said, with around 100 private biopharmaceutical companies associated with development, manufacturing and marketing of biosimilar drugs in India, the segment certainly offers a good opportunity for future growth. Over 70 such drugs, most of which are biosimilar versions of blockbuster biologic, are already in the market. Today, Indian companies are stepping out of the shores of India, expecting to make their presence felt in the global biosimilar markets, as they did with generic drugs.

The future projections of biosimilar drugs, both in the domestic and global markets are indeed very bullish. But to reap a rich harvest from expected future opportunities, Indian players would still require some more grounds to cover. Overall, in terms of biosimilar drug development since 2000, India indeed stands out as a success story, but a spectacular commercial success with biosimilars is yet to eventuate.

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.

Innovation: Is Big Pharma Talking Differently?

Posted on by
Reply

“Nearly 2 billion people have no access to basic medicines, causing a cascade of preventable misery and suffering. Good health is impossible without access to pharmaceutical products.” The World Health Organization’s (WHO) ‘Access to Medicine’ report on ‘Ten years in public health 2007–2017’ made this observation.

It also reemphasized: “A significant proportion of the world’s population, especially in developing countries, has yet to derive much benefit from innovations that are commonplace elsewhere.” Despite this, continued lobbying of many pharma companies for TRIPS-plus measures and legislation, the breaching of laws or codes relating to corruption and unethical marketing, and several blatant instances of company misconduct continues, even today.

In the midst of this situation, has Big Pharma started thinking differently about the purpose of innovation? I shall try to explore the ground reality in this article.

The argument of Big Pharma:

In response to the above observation or anything akin to that, Big Pharma has counter arguments, which are rather contentious, as many believe. They generally say, it is the responsibility of the different governments to alleviate health misery of the citizens, and not theirs. In tandem, they keep repeating the same old argument, underscoring lower prices of innovative drugs would lead to lower profit generation, significantly slowing down the process of innovation.

Drug innovation follows an arduous path and an expensive process: 

Big Pharma wants people to comprehend about what it entails in the journey of discovering a New Molecular Entity (NME) and converting it to a safe and effective medicine.

For example, in its booklet Bayer explained: ‘it takes about ten to twelve years to develop a new drug. during this time, highly qualified scientists from a variety of disciplines work on filtering out a suitable active ingredient from an enormous number of compounds. Between 5,000 and 10,000 compounds are rigorously studied in numerous laboratory tests and the best ones further optimized. out of four or five drug candidates that are then tested on humans in clinical studies often only one substance is approved and becomes available to physicians and patients.”

The entire process reportedly takes around 14 years, and according to a 2016 study by the Tufts Center for the Study of Drug Development - developing a new prescription drug, which gains marketing approval, is estimated to cost drug manufacturers USD 2.6 billion. Besides, a new analysis conducted at Forbes finds that getting a single drug to market may involve an expenditure of USD 350 million before the medicine is available for sale. It concludes, large pharmaceutical companies that are working on dozens of drug projects, spend USD 5 billion per new medicine.

Drug innovation is only for those who can afford:

As is being witnessed by many, Big Pharma always tend to argue that high R&D costs drive new drug prices up in pharma. Moving a step further, that drug innovation is for only those patients who can afford, was justified even by the CEO of a major constituent of Big Pharma. An article published in Forbes Magazine on December 05, 2013 wrote: “At the Financial Times Global Pharmaceutical & Biotech Conference this week, Bayer AG CEO, Marijn Dekkers, is reported to have said that Bayer didn’t develop its cancer drug, Nexavar (sorafenib) for India but for Western patients that can afford it.”

How strong is the justification for high new drug cost?   

Instead of believing the pharma argument on its face value, it will be worthwhile to go for a dip-stick analysis. One such analysis, titled “Pharmaceutical industry profits and research and development”, published by the USC-Brookings Schaeffer Initiative for Health Policy on November 17, 2017, presents some interesting facts.

It says, the pharmaceutical industry is a high-fixed-cost and low-marginal-cost industry. This means, as the authors explain, that the cost of bringing a new drug to market is very high and the process is risky, while the cost of producing an extra unit of a product that is on the market is frequently “pennies a pill”. It also, indicates, though there is a disagreement about the exact cost of bringing a new drug to market, there is general recognition that the process costs run a fewhundreds of millions of dollars per new drug. Thus, innovative drugs are supposed to be somewhat more expensive to many patients. But how much – is the question to ponder, I reckon.

An example of a new drug pricing:

Let me choose here, as an example, the pricing of one of the most contentious, but undoubtedly a breakthrough medicine – Sovaldi (Sofosbuvir) of Gilead. Sofosbuvir was discovered in 2007 – not by Gilead Sciences, but by Michael Sofia, a scientist at Pharmasset. The drug was first tested on human successfully in 2010. However, on January 17, 2012 Gilead announced completion of the acquisition of Pharmasset at approximately USD 11.2 billion.

Subsequently, on December 06, 2013, US-FDA approved Gilead’s Sovaldi (Sofosbuvir) for the treatment of Chronic Hepatitis C. Sovaldi was priced at USD 1,000 a day in the U.S., costingUSD 84,000 for a course of treatment. That Gilead can’t justify the price of its hepatitis C therapy – Sovaldi, was highlighted in an article with a similar title, published in the Forbes Magazine on June 17, 2014.

It is worth mentioning that Sovaldi costs around USD 67,000 for a course of therapy, in Germany. Whereas, it costs round USD 55,000 in Canada and the United Kingdom (UK). Gilead has accepted an altogether different pricing strategy for Sovaldi in some other countries, such as India and Egypt.

When the above concept is used to explain Sovaldi pricing:

The above Forbes paper explained its pricing by saying: “Add in other therapies that supplement Sovaldi, and now you’re talking about USD 100,000 or so to treat a single patient. To use Sovaldi to treat each of the 3 million hepatitis C patients in the United States, it would cost around USD 300 billion, or about the same amount we annually spend for all other drugs combined.”

Let me now put a couple of important numbers together to get a sense of the overall pricing scenario of a new drug. The New York Times (NYT) reported on February 03, 2015: “Gilead Sciences sold USD 10.3 billion of its new hepatitis C drug Sovaldi in 2014, a figure that brought it close to being the best-selling drug in the world in only its first year on the market.”

Against its just the first-year sale, let me put the cost of acquisition of Sovaldi at USD 11.2 billion, an expenditure of USD 350 million before the medicine is available for sale as calculated in the Forbes articleand the cost to manufacture a pill of Sovaldi at around USD 130. This reinforces the point, beyond any doubt how ‘outrageous’ its pricing is.Even Gilead’s CEO admitted to failures in setting price of Sovaldi at USD 1,000-A-Pill, said another article on the subject. More important is, the costs to Gilead for Sovaldi acquisition and launch were virtually recovered in just a little over a year, but Sovaldi’s original price tag remains unaltered.

Is the Big Pharma talking differently now?

It appears that some constituents of Big Pharma have now started talking differently in this regard, publicly – at least, in letters, if not in both letter and spirit. Be that as it may, one will possibly be too naïve to accept such sporadic signals coming from pharma, as a shift in their fundamental thought pattern on drug innovation as a profit booster. Being highly optimistic in this area, I would rather say that these are early days to conclude that Big Pharma has really accepted the reality that – drug innovation is only meaningful, if it reaches those patients who need them the most.

Changing…not changing…or early days?

Let me explain this point with examples of changing…not changing…orearly days.

Changing?

On July 24, 2018 during an interview to Pharm Exec the head of the sub-Saharan African region for Roche made some key points, such as:

  • Groundbreaking innovation in medical science is only meaningful, if it reaches the patients who need it.
  • Access to healthcare is a multidimensional challenge and key to addressing the barriers, is really understanding them
  • Need to create a new business model that can sustainably – and this is very important – create access for patients.

Not changing?

When one Big Pharma constituent is showing some change in its approach on the purpose of innovation, another constituent is trying to make the entry of cheaper biosimilar drugs even tougher. This creates yet another doubt – both on safety and efficacy of biosimilars, as compared to much higher priced off-patent original biologic drugs.In August 2018, Pfizer reportedly called for US-FDA guidance on ‘false or misleading information’ about biosimilars, citing some of the following examples from other Big Pharma constituents, such as:

  • Genentech’s “Examine Biosimilars” website, which states that “the FDA requires a biosimilar to be highly similar, but not identical to the existing biologic medicine.” Pfizer argues that Genentech’s omission of the fact that an approved biosimilar must have no clinically meaningful differences from its reference product is a failure to properly communicate the definition of a biosimilar.
  • Janssen Biotech’s patient brochure for brand-name Remicade, which states that a biosimilar works “in a similar way” to a biosimilar without clarifying that the biosimilar must have the same mechanism of action as the originator. Pfizer also takes issue with the brochure’s suggestion that no infliximab biosimilar has been proven to be safe or effective in a switching study.
  • Amgen’s April 13, 2018, tweet that states that patients may react differently to biosimilars than to reference products. Pfizer also points out an Amgen YouTube video that implies that switching to a biosimilar is unsafe for patients who are well controlled on a current therapy.

Interestingly, on July 20, 2018 Pfizer announced that the US-FDA has approved Nivestym (filgrastim-aafi), a biosimilar to Neupogen (filgrastim) of Amgen, for all eligible indications of the reference product. This is the fourth US-FDA approved Pfizer biosimilar drug, the marketing and sales promotion of which expectedly, I reckon, will be no different from other biosimilars.

Early days?

Yes, it appears so. These are early days to draw any definitive conclusion on the subject.

Conclusion:

W.H.O observed in its above report that the ‘overall situation is somewhat improving’. It was also corroborated in the ‘2016 Access to Medicines Index’, which gave high marks to those companies that negotiated licenses for antiretrovirals and hepatitis C medicines through the Medicines Patent Pool (MPP). MPP was set up in 2010 as a public health organization supported by the United Nations to improve access to HIV, hepatitis and tuberculosis treatments in low- and middle- income countries.

It could well be, on the purpose of drug innovation some new realization has dawned, at least, on some few global pharma majors. However, it is still difficult to fathom its depth, at this point of time. There is no conclusive signal to believe that the Big Pharma is now thinking differently on the subject, not just yet.

By: Tapan J. Ray   

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

Pharma Brand Building: Criticality of Enhancing End-To-End Customer Experience

Posted on by
Reply

In today’s fast-changing world, the types of medicines being developed, the way technology contributes to health, and how the value of health care is calculated, are all undergoing a metamorphosis. A wave of cell and gene therapies are bending the definition of what constitutes a drug, both clinically, and in terms of expectations of outcomes, duration of treatment and costs. Global health is poised to meet a series of key turning points, and changes seen in 2018 will mark the key inflections that drive the outlook for the next five years and beyond.

These are examples of key observations, as captured in the March 13, 2018 research report, titled: “2018 and Beyond: Outlook and Turning Points,” of the IQVIA Institute (previously IMS Institute). Arising out of these, the report envisages the following key impacts on the pharma industry in the next five years – from 2018 to 2022:

  • Patent expiry impact will be 37 percent larger than the prior five years, including both small molecule and biologics.
  • New medicines’ growth will be slower in 2018 – 2022 than the period from 2013 -2017.
  • Net price levels for branded drugs will rise modestly in the United States at 2–5% per year but will fall in other developed markets.
  • Volume for existing branded and generic medicines will remain slow, with the ongoing shifts towards newer medicines over time.
  • To increase access to medicinesGovernment and other payers to focus on addressing outstanding healthcare disparities or to invest in approaches to address system inefficiencies.

Such a situation, would obviously impede performance and productivity of many pharma players – both research-based and also the generic ones, across the world, including India. Against this backdrop, I shall discuss about the criticality of ‘enhancing end-to-end customer experience’ in pharma brand building exercise. The words to specially take note of are – ‘end-to-end customer experience’ and not just in some ‘touchpoints’. This would help many pharma players to navigate through this strong headwind to remain in the organizational growth trajectory.

Not a solitary finding:

Another series of articles from Bain & Company, published on June 30, 2015, May 25, 2017, May 09 and May 23, 2018, not just reflect similar core concern, as articulated in the IQVIA article. Moreover, the barriers to deliver growth from the in-market portfolios being tough, many drug companies are using even steep price increases as a key lever to achieve their financial goals. It continues to happen, despite strong criticisms both from the public and some powerful governments, such as the United States and also India, further denting industry’s public reputation.

Pharma sales reps no longer a primary learning resource about medicines?

It also came out clearly from some of these articles that ‘doctors in many developed countries have been moving away from pharma sales representatives as a primary resource for learning about medicines.’ It’s just a matter of time, I reckon, similar situation will prevail in India. So, what do the pharma organizations do now – wait for a similar situation to arise and then act, or initiate a proactive strategic marketing process, as soon as possible?

Enhancing customer experience in pharma brand building:

To mitigate this, a new concept for improving market share is gaining ground. It suggests, the intrinsic value of a brand, and its value delivery system should enhance the customer experience during the entire treatment process with the drug. Achieving this would prompt widely capturing and in-depth analysis of targeted customer expectations, preferences and aversions. Just listening to a patient or a doctor won’t suffice, any longer, for a pharma company to succeed in business.

The February 24, 2017 article, titled “The Case For Managing By Customer Episode,” published in Forbes very aptly said, ‘companies that once relied on developing new product features and improving customer service increasingly see competitive advantage rooted in the entire experience that’s wrapped around the product.’

The same point has been corroborated in several research studies, since the last few years. For example, a 2014 survey by McKinsey & Company came out with some interesting findings. It highlighted, by optimizing customer experience at every ‘touchpoint’ – ensuring a reasonably seamless customer journey, a company can potentially increase its revenue by up to 15 percent and lower the customer service costs by 20 percent.

Another research article dated May 23, 2018, titled ‘Why “Episodes” Matter for Doctors’, published in the Pharmaceutical Executive finds that about 40 percent of a doctor’s drug recommendations are linked to how effectively a firm delivers an overall experience, as distinct from product-related attributes such as clinical data. This share rises to about 60 percent for factors within the control of the commercial organization. Doctors who give high marks for their experience with a company, are between 2.3 and 2.7 times more likely to prescribe the company’s products as those who give low marks.The authors further highlighted, loyalty scores run low, both for the average firm and for many individual episodes for the pharma industry as a whole. That’s because firms have focused mostly on pushing out sales and marketing messages through as many channels as possible.

Units of ‘customer experience’ management:

Different publications acknowledge the need to have some key unit for managing customer experience. These units are described in different names by different experts, such as ‘episode’ or ‘touchpoint’.

Bain & Company said, each ‘Episode’ covers all tasks that a customer requires to complete for fulfilling a need. For each unit of ‘episode’, the clock starts as a customer feels and identifies a related need and ends when these are met with his/her full satisfaction. ‘The sum of a customer’s episodes over time comprise the entire experience of dealing with the company.’ So far as ‘Touchpoints’ are concerned, according to  McKinsey & Company, these are the individual transactions through which customers interact with parts of the business and its offerings. It reflects organization’s accountability and is relatively easy to build into operations.

Difference between ‘episode’ and ‘touchpoint’ in ‘customer experience’ management:

There is a difference between ‘episodes’ and ‘touchpoints’. Whereas ‘touchpoints’ are each point of contact or interaction, between a business and its customers,‘episodes’ focus on end-to-end design of a specific customer-need of an organization, as they align management and the front line around the customer experience.

Many companies believe that customers will be happy with the interaction when they connect with their product, customer service, sales staff, or marketing materials. However, McKinsey found that this siloed focus on individual touchpoints misses the bigger, and more important picture: the customer’s end-to-end experience or the ‘customer journey.’ It includes many things that happen before, during, and after the experience of a product or service. The companies providing the customer with the best experience from start to finish along the journey can expect to enhance customer satisfaction, improve sales and retention, reduce end-to-end service cost, and strengthen employee satisfaction.

Thus, only by looking at the customer’s experience through his or her own eyes, throughout the entire journey taken – a company can begin to understand how to meaningfully improve its performance.

Focus areas to create an exemplary customer experience:

According to Bain & Company there are 5 imperatives to focus on to create an exemplary customer experience, which I summarize, as follows:

  • Examine the experience from the outside in – from the customer’s point of view, not the organization’s structure and processes.
  • Meet customer expectations consistently.
  • Invest to provide outstanding experiences in the areas that have the greatest impact on customer advocacy.
  • Use rapid prototypes to deliver new services to customers.
  • Develop closed-loop feedback processes, continuously refining experiences to match or exceed ever-rising customer expectations.

Conclusion:

The mediocre performance of the pharma industry, especially, since the last few years, is bothering many stakeholders.The challenges to deliver business growth from in-market portfolios, coupled with frequent backlashes for using steep product price increase as a key lever to achieve financial goals, are some of the key causal factors.

Enhancing ‘customer experience’ in the process of pharma brand building initiatives, has also caught the imagination of some players. This is commendable. Nonetheless, several research studies indicate, if these are focused on individual customer-‘touchpoint’ based strategies, which, I reckon, is rather common, the outcome may remain quite far from expectations.

What really matters, is enhancing end-to-end experience with a brand – throughout a patient’s journey for disease prevention or effective treatment or even cure. This may, for example, begin with the search for effective and affordable treatment options – participating in arriving at the right treatment – prescription of right drugs, and finally receiving continuous requisite guidance throughout the course of treatment for better management of the disease or effective cure. Thus, pharma brand building by enhancing end-to-end ‘customer experience’, now assumes a critical strategic dimension.

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.

Why MNC Pharma Still Moans Over Indian IP Ecosystem?

Posted on by
Reply

Improving patient access to expensive drugs, paving the way for entry of their cheaper generic equivalents, post patent expiry, and avoiding evergreening, is assuming priority a priority focus area in many countries. The United States is no exception, in this area. The Keynote Address of Scott Gottlieb, Commissioner of Food and Drug at the 2018 Food and Drug Law Institute Annual Conference inWashington, DC by, on May 3, 2018, confirms this. Where, in sharp contrast with what the MNC Pharma players and their trade associations propagated, the US-FDA commissioner himself admitted by saying, “Let’s face it. Right now, we don’t have a truly free market when it comes to drug pricing, and in too many cases, that’s driving prices to unaffordable levels for some patients.”

Does US talk differently outside the country?

At least, it appears so to many. For example, in April 2018, the Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR) released its 2018 Special 301 Report. In this exercise, the USPTO names the country’s trading partners for not adequately protecting and enforcing Intellectual Property (IP) rights or otherwise deny market access to U.S. innovators that rely on the protection of their IP rights.’ Accordingly, U.S. trading partners are asked to address IP-related challenges, with a special focus on the countries identified on the Watch List (WL) and Priority Watch List (PWL).

In 2018, just as the past years, India continues to feature, along with 11 other countries, on the PWL, for the so called longstanding challenges in its IP framework and lack of sufficient measurable improvements that have negatively affected U.S. right holders over the past year.

From Patient access to affordable drugs to Market access for Expensive Drugs: 

Curiously, the USTR Report highlights its concerns not just related to IP, but also on market access barriers for patented drugs and medical devices, irrespective of a country’s socioeconomic compulsion. Nevertheless, comparing it to what the US-FDA Commissioner articulated above, one gets an impression, while the US priority is improving patient access to affordable drugs for Americans, it changes to supporting MNC pharma to improve market access for expensive patented drugs, outside its shores.

Insisting others to improve global IP Index while the same for the US slides:

In the context of the 2018 report, the U.S. Trade Representative, reportedly said, “the ideas and creativity of American entrepreneurs’ fuel economic growth and employ millions of hardworking Americans.” However, on a closer look at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce’s annual Global IP Index for 2018, a contrasting fact surfaces, quite clearly. It shows, America, which once was at the very top of the overall IP Index score, is no longer so – in 2018, the world rank of the US in offering patent protection to innovators, dropped to 12thposition from its 10thglobal ranking in 2017. Does it mean, what the US is asking its trading partners to follow, it is unable to hold its own ground against similar parameters, any longer.

Should IP laws ignore country’s socioeconomic reality? 

MNC Pharma often articulated, it doesn’t generally fall within its areas of concern, and is the Government responsibility. However, an affirmative answer, echoes from many independent sources on this issue. No wonder, some astute and credible voices, such as an article titled “U.S. IP Policy Spins Out of Control in the 2018 Special 301 Report”, published by the Electronic Frontier Foundation on May 01, 2018, termed 2018 Special 301 Report – ‘A Tired, Repetitive Report.’ It reiterates in no ambiguous term: ‘The report maintains the line that there is only one adequate and effective level of IP protection and enforcement that every country should adhere to, regardless of its social and economic circumstances or its international legal obligations.

The ever-expanding MNC Pharma list of concerns on Indian IP laws:

The areas of MNC Pharma concern, related to Indian IP laws, continues to grow even in 2018. The letter dated February 8, 2018 of the Intellectual Property Owners Association, Washington, DC to the USTR, makes these areas rather clear. I shall quote below some major pharma related ones, from this ever-expanding list:

  • Additional Patentability Criteria – section 3 (d): The law makes it difficult for them to secure patent protection for certain types of pharma inventions.
  • TADF (Technology Acquisition and Development Fund)is empowered to request Compulsory Licensing (CL) from the Government:Section 4.4 of India’s National Manufacturing Policy discusses the use of CL to help domestic companies access the latest patented green technology.This helps in situations when a patent holder is unwilling to license, either at all or “at reasonable rates,” or when an invention is not being “worked” within India.
  • India’s National Competition Policyrequires IP owners to grant access to “essential facilities” on “agreed and nondiscriminatory terms” without reservation. They are not comfortable with it.
  • Regulatory Data Protection: The Indian Regulatory Authority relies on test data submitted by originators to another country when granting marketing approval to follow-on pharma products. It discourages them to develop new medicines that could meet unmet medical needs.
  • Requirement of local working of patents: The Controller of Patents is empowered to require patent holders and any licensees to provide details on how the invention is being worked in India. Statements of the Working, (Form 27),must be provided annually.Failure to provide the requested information is punishable by fine or imprisonment. It makes pharma patent holders facing the risk of CL, if they fail to “work” their inventions in India within three years of the respective patent grant.
  • Disclosure of Foreign Filings: Section 8 of India’s Patent Act requires disclosure and regular updates on foreign applications that are substantially “the same or substantially the same invention.” They feel it is irrelevant today.

Pharma MNCs’ self-serving tirade is insensitive to Indian patient interest:

Continuing its tirade against some developed and developing countries, such as India, the US drug manufacturers lobby group – Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA) has urged the office of the US Trade Representative (USTR) to take immediate action to address serious market access and intellectual property (IP) barriers in 19 overseas markets, including India, reports reported The Pharma Letter on February 28, 2018. It will be interesting to watch and note the level active and passive participation of India based stakeholders of this powerful US lobby group, as well.

Government of India holds its ground… but the saga continues:

India Government’s stand in this regard, including 2018 Special 301 Report, has been well articulated in its report released on January 24, 2018, titled “Intellectual Property Rights Regime in India – An Overview”, released by the Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion Ministry of Commerce and Industry (DIPP). The paper also includes asummary of some of the main recommendations, as captured in the September 2016 Report of the High-Level Panel on Access to Medicines, constituted by the Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon of the United Nations in November 2015.  Some of these observations are as follows:

  • WTO members must make full use of the TRIPS flexibilities as confirmed by the Doha Declaration to promote access to health technologies when necessary.
  • WTO members should make full use of the policy space available in Article 27 of the TRIPS agreement by adopting and applying rigorous definitions of invention and patentability that are in the interests of public health of the country and its inhabitants. This includes amending laws to curtail the evergreening of patents and awarding patents only when genuine innovation has occurred.
  • Governments should adopt and implement legislation that facilitates the issuance of Compulsory Licenses (CL). The use of CL should be based on the provisions found in the Doha Declaration and the grounds for the issuance left to the discretion of the governments.
  • WTO members should revise the paragraph 6 decision in order to find a solution that enables a swift and expedient export of pharmaceutical products produced under compulsory license.
  • Governments and the private sector must refrain from explicit or implicit threats, tactics or strategies that undermine the right of WTO Members to use TRIPS flexibilities.
  • Governments engaged in bilateral and regional trade and investment treaties should ensure that these agreements do not include provisions that interfere with their obligations to fulfill the rights to health.

The DIPP report includes two important quotes, among several others, as follows:

Joseph Stiglitz, Nobel Prize for Economics (2001) – an American Citizen:

-       “If patent rights are too strong and maintained for too long, they prevent access to knowledge, the most important input in the innovation process. In the US, there is growing recognition that the balance has been too far tilted towards patent protection in general (not just in medicine).”

-       “Greater IP protection for medicines would, we fear, limit access to life-saving drugs and seriously undermine the very capable indigenous generics industry that has been critical for people’s well-being in not only India but other developing countries as well”.

Bernie Sanders, an American Citizen and Senior U.S. Senator:

-      “Access to health care is a human right, and that includes access to safe and affordable prescription drugs. It is time to enact prescription drug policies that work for everyone, not just the CEOs of the pharmaceutical industry.”

-      “Healthcare must be recognized as a right, not a privilege. Every man, woman and child in our country should be able to access the health care they need regardless of their income.”

Conclusion:

Why is then this orchestrated moaning and accompanying pressure for making Indian IP laws more stringent, which apparently continues under the façade of ‘innovation at risk’, which isn’t so – in any case. But, cleverly marketed high priced ‘me too’ drugs with molecular tweaking do impact patient access. So is the practice of delaying off-patent generic drugs entry, surreptitiously. Instead, why not encourage Voluntary Licensing (VL) of patented drugs against a mutually agreed fee, for achieving greater market access to the developing countries, like India?

Whatever intense advocacy is done by the vested interests to change Indian patent laws in favor of MNC pharma, the intense efforts so far, I reckon, have been akin to running on a treadmill – without moving an inch from where they were, since and even prior to 2005. The moaning of MNC Pharma on the Indian IP ecosystem, as I see it, will continue, as no Indian Government will wish to take any risk in this area. It appears irreversible and is likely to remain so, for a long time to come. The time demands from all concerned to be part of the solution, and not continue to be a part of the problem, especially by trying to tamper with the IP ecosystem of the country.

By: Tapan J. Ray

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

‘Rigged’ Payment System Limits Biosimilar Access

Posted on by
Reply

As often discussed, market entry of biosimilars, in general, brings a new hope not just for many patients, but also to biosimilar drug manufacturers – planning to get marketing approvals of these drugs in the United States, the El Dorado of global pharma industry.

Stakeholder expectations keep increasing manifold as biosimilars offer cheaper treatment options with biologic drugs in many life-threatening and rare diseases. However, biosimilars still remain an unfulfilled promise.

The January 2018 paper by Trinity Partners on “The State of US Biosimilars Market Access” in the largest drug market of the world makes an important observation in this regard. It says, the promise of biosimilars offering cost-saving competition in the lucrative US biologic market, remains largely unfulfilled.

As on date, adoption of biosimilars has been hindered by lack of market access due to complex contracting dynamics, besides regulatory and legal uncertainty, and a general lack of clinical comfort with biosimilars.

Consequently, current state of biosimilar acceptance and access appear too insignificant. More so, as compared to traditional small molecule generic markets where their use is fueled by automatic substitution and payer formularies, over higher priced branded reference drugs.

It would not have been difficult, especially for the innovative biologic drug makers to brush this important study aside, had the US-FDA Commissioner – Scott Gottlieb would not have voiced what he did in March this year.

With this perspective, I shall discuss in this article, how access to biosimilar drugs are getting limited. In doing so, I shall begin with what the US-FDA Commissioner has recently highlighted in this area.

Yet another barrier:

As reported by Bloomberg on March 07, 2018, the US-FDA Commissioner Scott Gottlieb unambiguously expressed that biologic drug manufacturers enter into exclusive arrangements with Pharmacy Benefit Managers (PBMs) and insurers, who agree to cover only the old brands in return for rebates or discounts. This “rigged” payment scheme might quite literally scare the biosimilar competition out of the market altogether, he articulated, categorically.

US-FDA Commissioner delivered this speech at the National Health Policy Conference for America’s Health Insurance Plans. During this deliberation, Gottlieb criticized some unwanted and avoidable practices that stifle biosimilar development.

He observed, of the 9 approved biosimilars in the US, only 3 could be launched market. In many instances, patent litigation is the reason for such delay in launch, post FDA approval. Connecting the dots, the Commissioner observed, even after being in the market, biosimilars continue facing more uncertainty due to a ‘rigged payment scheme.’

Started with a great promise:

It is worth noting, till 2010 no regulatory pathway for marketing approval of biosimilars was in place in the world’s largest pharma market – the United States. Hence, despite biosimilar drugs being a treatment option in many countries over the last two decades, the first biosimilar was launched in the US, following this pathway, only in 2015. It was Zarxio ((Filgrastim-sndz) of Novartis – indicated for the treatment of patients with acute myeloid leukemia (AML).

Since then, US-FDA has approved nine biosimilars. Ironically biosimilar market size still remains small and much below the general expectations. Most biosimilar manufacturers are navigating through multiple tough hurdles for market launch of this relatively new genre of complex drugs.

Navigating through tough hurdles:

There are tough hurdles to navigate through, while launching biosimilars, especially in the US. Some of which are as follows:

Protracted litigations: The development and launch of most biosimilars get stuck in the multiple patent web-lock, created around original biologic molecules, leading to long drawn expensive litigations.

Pricing: Following small molecule generic drugs, most payers and consumers expect biosimilar pricing too will be no different. However, in practice, most biosimilars are priced just around 15 percent to 20 percent less than original biologics.

Interchangeability: Lack of interchangeability among presently approved biosimilars in the US limits payers’ and consumer choice for a shift from the reference biologic drugs to suitable biosimilars. This virtually restricts the use of biosimilars mostly to such drug-naïve patients.

Confidence: For various reasons, the confidence and familiarity of both physicians and the consumers on biosimilars remain suboptimal. Whether relatively cheaper biosimilars can be used in the same indications as the reference biologic to the new patients – as an alternative choice, is still not clear to many of them. This situation calls for increasing awareness programs involving all stakeholders.

Manufacturing: The manufacturing process of large molecule biosimilars is quite costly as compared to small molecule generic drugs. Hence, these are unlikely to follow a similar pricing pattern, attracting as high a discount as around 80 percent, compared to original branded drugs.

Some of these barriers I have discussed in my article, titled ‘Improving Patient Access To Biosimilar Drugs: Two Key Barriers’, published in this blog on July 31, 2017.

Conclusion:

Be that as it may, drug manufacturers continue to see tremendous opportunity in biosimilars. The interest is heating up, as about six of the top 10 biologic drugs are expected to go off-patent in the US by 2019.

Despite all this, it is generally believed, the prevailing situation will change even in the US. The regulator is expected to facilitate smoother market entry of biosimilars, facing much less obstacles on the way. As many strongly believe, these are possibly an outcome of intense industry lobbying, with the high-level policy makers.  Many of these hurdles can be removed by the regulators, themselves, including drug interchangeability.

The US-FDA Commissioner Scott Gottlieb has already said in a meeting on March 07, 2018, the FDA will start educating doctors and patients to minimize clinical and other concerns related to biosimilars. Therefore, going forward, greater competition in the biosimilar space is expected to increase the long-awaited price differential, as compared to reference biologic.

With greater support from the regulators, biosimilars still show a unique promise of greater acceptance and access to patients – occasionally ‘Rigged’ maneuvers by the vested interests notwithstanding.

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.