Biologic Drugs: The hunt for the ‘Magic Bullets’ is on

Posted on December 5, 2011 by Tapan Ray

The global pharmaceutical industry is now navigating its way through very cautiously while negotiating an unprecedented ‘patent cliff’, simultaneously with gradually drying-up R&D pipelines. This unique situation has triggered off several global mega Mergers and Acquisitions (M&A) not only involving better protected biologic drugs business, but also in the large generic space mostly in the emerging markets of the world, which used to be ignored by many before the turn of the new century.

Patent Expiry in next 12 months:

According to an article published in the ‘FiercePharma’ dated October 24, 2011 titled, ‘10 largest U.S patent losses’, over the next 12 months the following best-selling drugs, ranked not by US sales volume but by their weight in each company’s US revenue stream, will face patent expiry:

	Company	Brand
1	Forest Laboratories	Lexapro
2	Takeda Pharmaceuticals	Actos
3	Bristol-Myers Squibb	Plavix
4	AstraZeneca	Seroquel
5	Eli Lilly	Zyprexa
6	Pfizer	Lipitor*
7	Merck	Singulair
8	Novartis	Diovan
9	Teva Pharmaceuticals	Provigil
10	Abbott Laboratories	TriCor

* Patent expired on November 30, 2011

Opening a new vista of opportunity:

In the midst of such a critical situation within the global pharmaceutical industry, application of biotechnology in the drug discovery process opened up a new vista of a broad range of new class of therapies. These include monoclonal antibodies, therapeutic protein hormones, cytokines tissue growth factors, cell or gene therapies and vaccines, just to name a few.

A recent report of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) predicts that 80% of the total biotech products, which are expected to be commercialized by 2030, will be medicines and medical diagnostics.

Old business model signals a diminishing return:

Over a period of decades, the business model of small-molecule based blockbuster drugs has successfully catapulted the global pharmaceutical business to a high-margin, dynamic and vibrant industry. However, a time has now come when the golden path from the ‘mind to market’ of the drug discovery process is becoming increasingly arduous and prohibitively expensive.

Deploying expensive resources to discover a New Chemical Entity (NCE) with gradually diminishing returns in the milieu of ‘me too’ types of new drugs, does no longer promise a strong commercial incentive.

A shift in focus from ‘small molecules’ to ‘large molecules’:

Since last several years, the success of biologic drugs compared to conventional small-molecule chemical drugs, has been changing the area of focus of pharmaceutical R&D altogether, making the biotech companies interesting targets for M&A.

As per published data, although the market capitalization of the top ten large pharmaceutical companies dropped more than US$ 700 billion since 2001, the same for the biotech companies, on the other hand, has gone up by more than 50% during this period. This trend signifies proliferation of biotech drugs in the years ahead for meeting unmet needs of the patients.

To keep pace with the biotech led growth of the global pharmaceutical industry, many companies have started imbibing biotech-like R&D structure within their respective organizations. For examples, the pharmaceutical majors GsK and Pfizer have already articulated the strategic intent to restructure their respective large monolithic R&D set-ups to smaller independent drug discovery units.

Such restructuring is expected to foster ‘can do’ spirit of the biotech entrepreneurs within the recreated smaller units of large R&D setups to accelerate overall R&D productivity for enrichment of the new product pipelines. However, future will be the best judge to evaluate the success of this experiment.

As if to vindicate this emerging scenario, on November 30, 2011 Bloomberg reported, “U.K.’s largest drug maker has broken up research into competitive teams and put scientists back at the center of the process. But freedom carries a price: researchers who don’t adapt must go. Scientists now ‘live or die with their project.’ This month, Glaxo (GsK) completed the first appraisal of its new model. The company is now deciding which teams deserve more funding and which ones don’t. The conclusions will probably be made public in February when Glaxo (GsK) reports full-year earnings.”

Biologic drugs offer greater promise to meet more unmet needs:

Unlike conventional chemical drugs, most genetically modified biologic drugs work with a very high degree of precision and accuracy on the cells of the diseased organ. Many clinical studies have amply demonstrated that such drugs not only ensure faster recovery, but also help saving incremental treatment cost because of their excellent safety profile.

As we see today, more and more of those global pharmaceutical companies, who used to spend around 15% to 20% of their annual sales for R&D projects are channelizing a large part of the same to effectively compete in the fast evolving market of biologic drugs mainly through M&A. This strategy well justifies their strategic intent to make good the loss of income from the blockbuster drugs going off-patent quite in tandem with their fast dwindling R&D pipeline, as it were.

The bottom-line impact of a successful well targeted new biologic molecule to treat intractable ailments like, various types of cancer and blood disorders, auto-immune and Central Nervous System (CNS) related diseases, neurological disorders such as Parkinson’s, Myasthenia gravis, Multiple Sclerosis and Alzheimer’s disease, are expected to be huge.

Faster growth of biologic drugs:

Despite patent cliff, large molecule biologic drugs like Enbrel, Remicade, Avastin, Rituxan and Humira continue to contribute more than the small molecule drugs of chemical origin to overall growth of the large global pharmaceutical majors. Many of these drugs were sourced by them either through acquisitions or collaborative arrangements.

Cash strapped biotech companies with molecules ready for human clinical trials or with target molecules falling in the well sought after growth areas like, monoclonal antibodies, vaccines, cell or gene therapies, therapeutic protein hormones, cytokines and tissue growth factor are becoming attractive acquisition targets of the small molecules dominated large pharmaceutical companies having deep pockets.

Global Market Scenario:

According to IMS Health, biologics contribute around 17% of global pharmaceutical sales and generated a revenue of US$ 120 billion during MAT March 2009

In 2010 Biologic drugs increased their turnover to US$ 140 billion in the total market of US$ 850 billion. The sale of Biosimilar drugs outside USA exceeded US$ 1 billion.

Six biologic drugs featured in the top 12 and eight in the top 20 best selling global brands. Remicade emerged as the highest-selling biologics in 2010, ahead of Enbrel. Roche remained the top company by sales for biologics with anticancer and monoclonal antibodies. (source: Knol 2010)

Major acquisitions from 2005-2011 for Biologic drugs:

The opportunity of meeting the unmet needs of the patients with effective biologic drugs, especially in high-growth therapy areas, has given the M&A activities in the pharma-biotech space an unprecedented thrust in the recent times.

Following are the major acquisitions in the field of biologic drugs from 2005 to 2011:

Company	Target company	The deal: $billion	Products
Roche	Genentech	47	Rituxan, Avastin, Herceptin, MoAbs, Oncology
Sanofi Aventis	Genzyme	20	Orphan biologicsCerezyme, Fabrazyme, Renagel, Synvisc
AstraZeneca	MedImmune	15.6	Monoclonal Antibodies
Merck	Serono	13.5	Biologics
Takeda	Millennium	8.8	Velcade, Oncology
Lilly	ImClone	6.0	Erbitux, Oncology
Novartis	Chiron	5.8	Vaccines
Teva	Cephalon	6.2	Nuvigil, Provigil, Treanda CNS, Oncology
Abraxis	American BioScience	4.2	Oncology
Astellas	OSI Pharma	4.0	Tarceva, oncology
Eisai	MGI Pharma	3.9	Aloxi, Salagen, Hexalen, Oncology
Celgene	Pharmion	2.9	Oncology
Celgene	Abraxis	2.9	Oncology
Gilead	Myogen	2.5	Biotechnology
BMS	Medarex	2.4	Monoclonal antibodies
J&J	Crucell	2.3	Vaccines
Amgen	Abgenix	2.2	Monoclonal antibodies
Boehringer Ingelheim	MacroGenics	2.1	Monoclonal antibodies
Gilead	CV Terapeutics	1.4	Cardiovascular
Genzyme	Osiris	1.4	Prochymal, Stem cells
GSK	ID Biomed	1.3	Biologics
AstraZeneca	Cambridge Antibody Technology	1.3	Monoclonal Antibodies
Merck	Sirna	1.1	RNAi
Amgen	BioVex	1	OncoVex

(Source: Mergers and Acquisitions Review2005-2011 Pharma Biotech by Knol)

Why do so many companies want to enter into the biotech space?

The answer to the key question of why do so many companies want to enter into the biotech space of the business, in summary, could lie in the following:

Truly innovative small molecule discovery is becoming more and more challenging and expensive with the low hanging fruits already being plucked.
More predictable therapeutic activity of biologics with better safety profile.
A higher percentage of biologic drugs have turned into blockbuster drugs in the recent past.
Market entry barrier for biosimilar drugs, after patent expiry of the original molecule, is much tougher than small molecule generics.
A diverse portfolio of both small and large molecules will reduce future business risks.

A recent study:

In one of their recent collaborative studies published in an article titled, “Is R&D Earning its Investment?” Deloitte and Thomson Reuters (2009) have reported that the top 12 global pharma majors have 21% to 66% biologic drugs in their late stage product pipeline with the average being at 39%.

Another interesting trend:

Besides mega acquisitions, relatively smaller pharmaceutical players have started acquiring venture-backed biotech companies to enrich their product pipelines with early-stage drugs at a much lesser cost. For example, with the acquisition of Calistoga for US $ 600 million and venture-backed Arresto Biosciences and CGI Pharmaceuticals, Gilead known for its HIV drugs, expanded into blood cancer, solid tumor and inflammatory disease segments. In 2009 the same Gilead acquired CV Therapeutics for US $1.4billion to build a portfolio for cardiovascular drugs. In November 2011, Gilead acquired ‘Pharmasset’ for US$ 11 billion to include in its product pipeline a future Hepatitis C drugs offering 95% cure rates.

Smaller biotech companies usually do not get engaged in very large deals unlike the top pharma players, but make quick, decisive and successful smaller deals more effectively.

Much less generic competition for biologic space:

After patent expiry of NCEs, innovators’ brands become extremely vulnerable to cut throat generic competition with as much as 90% price erosion. This happens as the small molecules are relatively easier to replicate by the generic manufacturers. Moreover, the process of getting regulatory approval of NCEs is also not as stringent as biosimilar drugs in most of the markets of the world.

On the other hand biosimilar drugs involving difficult, complex and expensive processes for development with stringent regulatory requirements for getting their marketing approval in the developed markets of the world like the EU and the USA, offer significant brand protection from generic competition for quite some time, even after the patent expiry.

Mainly due to this reason, brands like the following are expected to go strong for some more time without any significant competition from the biosimilar drugs:

Brand	Company	Launch date
Rituxan	Roche/Biogen idec	1997
Herceptin	Roche	1998
Remicade	Centocor/J&J	1998
Enbrel	Amgen/Pfizer	1998

Smaller biotech companies to be the prime targets:

In my view, the voracious appetite of large pharmaceutical companies for inorganic growth through mega M&A, will ultimately subside due to various compelling reasons. Instead, smaller biotech companies, especially with products in Phase I or II of clinical trials, without wherewithal to take them to subsequent stages of development, will be the prime targets for acquisition by the pharma majors at an attractive valuation.

Cost of treatment:

Despite so many positives, high priced biologic drugs do raise a critical concern about the incremental load on already ballooning healthcare costs to the patients.

The Wall Street Journal (WSJ) in its September 29, 2010 issue highlighted that biologic drugs can cost as much as $1.5 million annually to the user. Similarly Forbes.com on April 12, 2009 reported, “Biologic drugs can cost up to 22 times more than traditional medications – some as much as $400,000 a year”.

This is indeed a very serious issue that needs to be resolved sooner. Speedy entry of biosimilar drugs will partly address this critical issue.

Conclusion:

Although the large pharma majors have already started experimenting to work with the pure biotech companies in terms of M&A and strategic alliances, it will be interesting to watch the long term ‘DNA Compatibility’ of the business models, organization/ work/employee culture and market outlook of these two different types of organizations while improving the global business performance of the overall entity, significantly.

Only future will tell us whether or not just restructuring of the R&D set up of companies like, Pfizer, Merck, Roche and perhaps Sanofi at a later date, helps synergizing the overall R&D productivity of the merged entities.

Be that as it may, despite serious cost concern, experts still believe that biologic drugs have all the potential to deliver the ‘magic bullets’ in the fight against many intractable diseases of mankind in not too distant future.

Hence the hunt is on.

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.

‘Utility Models’: A process of winning in the world of innovation

Posted on July 11, 2011 by Tapan Ray

On May 13, 2011 the Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion (DIPP) uploaded in their website a Discussion Paper on “Utility Models (UM)”. It was reported that as a policy initiative on Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) and to encourage innovation in the country, without diluting the present strict criteria for patentability, this discussion paper intends to trigger a healthy national debate on a very relevant subject.

Benefits of UM:

A publication titled, Utility Models and Innovation in Developing Countries by International Centre for Trade and Sustainable Development (ICTSD), Geneva, Switzerland highlights the following benefits of the UM:

• Fosters local innovation for local industries to produce more goods and generate more employment.

• Protects valuable inventions which otherwise would not be protected under the patent law of the country.

• Prevents free-riding of inventions by copiers who do not make any investment in R&D.

• Generates additional revenue for the government in terms of fees towards registration, search, publication, etc.

• Acts as a source of valuable information via published specifications.

• Reduces incentives for industry to lobby for the inclusion of minor inventions in the patent regime, which in turn would limit the public domain much more than the less expansive utility model system.

Does India need UM Laws?

Though India is fast emerging as a global economic power to reckon with, the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises (MSME) of the country still do not have adequate resources and wherewithal to invest in various R&D projects in the right scale. Thus many of them are unable to come out with the types of inventions, which would have global potential and also conform to the prevailing Patents Act of India (2005).

Moreover, even today the benefits of acquiring ‘Intellectual property (IP)’ in the business process is still not widely understood and made use of, across various Indian industries. The requisite culture, appropriate ecosystem and thereby a groundswell for innovation are yet to take shape in our country.

Imitating or copying something new developed within or outside India is the order of the day in most of the industries in India. As the UM would require neither a high-tech infrastructural support nor high level of investments, coming out with a commercially relevant innovation with limited exclusivity period may not be as difficult, especially, by the MSME sector of India. UM could thus effectively help creating both an appropriate ecosystem and groundswell for innovation in the country.

As indicated in the DIPP Discussion Paper, many countries of the world like, Australia, China, Japan, Germany, France, Korea, Netherlands and others still find the UM as an extensively used tool to foster innovation within the local industries.

Utility models in some countries:

As indicated in the above DIPP Discussion Paper, I am quoting below examples of UM being practiced in some important countries:

COUNTRY	DATE OF FIRST LAW	DURATION OF PROTECTION	NAME	SUBSTANTIVE EXAMINATION
AUSTRALIA	1979/2001	8 years	Innovation Patent	no
AUSTRIA	1994	10 years	Utility Model	no
BELGIUM	1987	6 years	Short Term Patent	no
BRAZIL	1945	10 years	Utility Model	yes
CHINA	1985	10 years	Utility Model	no
FRANCE	1968	6 years	Utility Certificate	no
GERMANY	1891	10 years	Gebrauchsmuster	no
INDONESIA	1991	5 years	Simple Patent	yes
ITALY	1934	10 years	Utility Model	no
JAPAN	1905	not > 15 years	Utility Model	no
KOREA	1961	not > 15 years	Utility Model	yes – but deferred
MALAYSIA	1986	15 years	Utility Innovation	yes
MEXICO	1991	10 years	Utility Model	yes
NETHERLANDS	1995	6 years	Short Term Patent	no

(Source: Petty Patents by John Richards – updated version of Proceedings of the Fordham University School of Law International Intellectual Property Law and Policy Conference 1995,Juris Publishing and Sweet & Maxwell, 1998).

Therefore, keeping in mind of the needs of, especially, the MSME sector, I reckon, the UM should be seriously considered by the Government for expeditious implementation. As stated earlier, the UM would enable a large section of smaller entrepreneurs to get a limited commercial exclusivity for their inventions, which otherwise would not have been possible by them within the current patent regime of India.

Moreover, such inventions being incremental in nature, subsequent inventions would be triggered much faster with a cascading effect on continuous innovation in the country.

In this scenario, it will be very important to keep the registration cost for the UM within affordable limits by the Indian Patent Offices (IPO).

Scope of protection:

I reckon, all types of inventions, including mechanical and chemical ones, should be covered under the UM. If this does not happen the UM law will only be useful to a small section of the entrepreneurs.

Further, a large number of useful developments and improvements that may fall short of requirements of getting patents, could be well accommodated under the UM to encourage more and more innovations for rapid economic growth of the country.

In case of chemical or pharmaceutical innovations there will also be a chance for the smaller players to apply for the UM for incremental innovation, when such inventions would not pass the stringent qualifying criteria of Section 3(d) of the Indian Patents Act. I hasten to add that some contentious issues could possibly crop-up in this area, which needs to be resolved with well informed debates.

I would recommend that in India UM may be considered for innovations in areas of chemicals, pharmaceuticals, devices, tools, working instruments or apparatus with appropriate qualifying standards.

Parameters for consideration:

The inventive threshold for the UM would obviously be less than what is required by the patent laws of India. These should be very clearly enunciated by the policy makers without ambiguity whatsoever. However, the product novelty criteria in no case should be compromised, which should be similar to patents.

The period of exclusivity for UM varies internationally, for example, from 5 years in Indonesia to 10 years in China and 15 years in Korea. In India, the protection period should not ideally exceed 5 to 7 years from the date of grant of the UM with a much simpler registration process than the patent.

Section 8(1) of Patents Act may be suitably amended to include provision of UM. At the same time, providing details of corresponding UMs, along with related patent applications, if any, should be made mandatory.

An innovator should be allowed to apply for both patent and UM together. However, when only an application for patent will be filed and after scrutiny, if the same does not qualify for grant of patent, the concerned applicant may be allowed to convert the same application into UM, without any adverse impact on priority.

It is important to ensure that filing of a new UM nearer end of the term of patent is not allowed. The patent may, in such cases, be regarded as prior art by the IPO. Moreover, any provision for temporary protection of an invention as an UM pending grant of a patent should not be included in the legislation. Patent grant is usually a slow process in India, which quite often gets caught in the quagmire of delays and backlogs. In such a scenario, if any temporary exclusivity is granted by way of UM to the applicant, the entire patent processing system may get further slowed down.

Promoting domestic filings by MSMEs:

There does not seem to be any need to provide any specific provision to promote domestic filing by the MSMEs other than by way of providing for express provisions of disposal of infringement actions or other related contentious issues. Specific non-extendable time frames should be provided for all.

Currently the Courts in India have very little exposure to IP laws. Keeping this in mind UM laws should have simple wordings, free of ambiguity enunciating specific measures in case of infringement. Any invalidity should be clearly spelt out to avoid unnecessary appeals and unproductive, protracted and expensive litigation process.

To make Indian industries feel and understand the need for the protection/exclusivity for the UM, suitable awareness campaigns should be designed and championed by the government and the industry bodies with a focused approach to achieve this goal within a given timeframe.

UM and Traditional knowledge:

Traditional knowledge is something, which is already available or known to public at large and any protection to such knowledge would deny the civil society its legitimate rights in India. Thus, I shall strongly recommend that no exclusivity is granted to any person or industry on traditional knowledge.

However, rights to traditional knowledge may be provided through a different fail-proof mechanism to safeguard the interest of specific communities in India, who have inherited such knowledge through practice for generations.

The enforcement mechanism:

The enforcement mechanism for the UM should be similar to the Patent System or else a special ‘Utility Model Appellate Board (UMAB)’ may be considered for speedy redressal of infringement disputes.

Obviating monopolistic dominance:

Compensation / royalty rather than other methods of restrain could be a better option as most applicants would be MSMEs.

The UM law makers should, however, bear in mind that individual innovators although will have remedy within the law in case of a breach, due to sheer practical considerations, could at times feel helpless when a rich licensee will fail to compensate or pay royalty as per the order of a Court of law.

I would, therefore, suggest that there should be specific clauses in the UM law, which will be strong deterrent to such behaviour by unscrupulous elements, for example, payment of the compensation in an amount exceeding about 15 to 20 times of the original award in the event of default for no good reason. However in such a case the appropriate value may be properly decided to effectively avoid any attempt of ‘extortionary measures’ by anyone.

Conclusion:

It is believed by many that the UM framework with a lower threshold of invention will be able to encourage domestic incremental innovation in many areas of business. Thus, by providing protection to UM for about 5 years vis-a-vis 20 years, as provided by the patents, India can further stimulate the process of innovation, while discouraging monopolies in the country.

I reckon, a suitably designed UM framework will immensely encourage the domestic players to seek protection and obtain exclusivity for continuous incremental innovation in various facets of their respective businesses.

This process, in turn, will promote innovation based commercial business models within the country by offering low cost and affordable innovative products to the common man, adding simultaneously speed to the wheel of economic progress of the nation with inclusive growth.

Open Innovation: Quo Vadis, Pharmaceutical R&D?

Posted on July 4, 2011 by Tapan Ray

Is the Pharmaceutical R&D moving from the traditional models to much less uncharted frontiers?

Perhaps towards this direction, in November, 2010 in a report titled, “Open Source Innovation Increasingly Being Used to Promote Innovation in the Drug Discovery Process and Boost Bottomline”, Frost & Sullivan underscored the urgent need of the global pharmaceutical companies to respond to the challenges of high cost and low productivity in their respective Research and Development initiatives, in general.

‘Open Innovation’ model, they proposed, will be most appropriate in the current scenario to improve not only profit, but also to promote more innovative approaches in the drug discovery process. Currently, on an average it takes about 8 to 10 years to bring an NCE/NME to market with a cost of around U.S$ 1.7 billion.

The concept of ‘Open Innovation’ is being quite successfully used by the Information Technology (IT) industry since nearly three decades all over the world, including in India. Web Technology, the Linux Operating System (OS) and even the modern day ‘Android’ – the open source mobile OS, are excellent examples of ‘Open source innovation’ in IT.

In the sphere of Biotechnology Human Genome Sequencing is another remarkable outcome in this area.

On May 12, 2011, in an International Seminar held in New Delhi, the former President of India Dr. A.P.J. Abdul Kalam commented, “Open Source Drug Discovery (OSDD) explores new models of drug discovery”. He highlighted the need for the scientists, researchers and academics to get effectively engaged in ‘open source philosophy’ by pooling talent, patents, knowledge and resources for specific R&D initiatives from across the world. In today’s world ‘Open Innovation’ in the pharmaceutical R&D has a global relevance, especially, for the developing world of ‘have-nots’.

The ‘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. The licensing arrangement of OSDD where both invention and copyrights will be involved, are quite different from any ‘Open Source’ license for a software development.

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.

As stated earlier, ‘Open Innovation’ concept was successfully used in the ‘Human Genome Project’ where a large number of scientists, and microbiologists participated from across the world to sequence and understand the human genes. However, this innovation process was first used to understand the mechanics of proteins by the experts of the Biotech and pharmaceutical industries.

The Objectives of ‘Open Innovation’:

The key objective of ‘Open Innovation’ in pharmaceuticals is to encourage drug discovery initiatives, especially for the dreaded disease like cancer and also the neglected diseases of the developing countries to make these drugs affordable to the marginalized people of the world.

Key benefits of ‘Open Innovation’:

According to the above report of Frost & Sullivan on the subject, the key benefits of ‘Open Innovation’ in pharmaceuticals will include:

• Bringing together the best available minds to tackle “extremely challenging” diseases

• Speed of innovation

• Risk-sharing

• Affordability

Some issues:

Many experts feel that the key issues for ‘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?

However, all these do not seem to be an insurmountable problem at all, as the saying goes, ‘where there is a will, there is a way’.

Current Global initiatives for ‘Open Innovation’:

In June 2008, GlaxoSmithKline announced in Philadelphia that it was donating an important slice of its research on cancer cells to the cancer research community to boost the collaborative battle against this disease. With this announcement, genomic profiling data for over 300 sets of cancer cell lines was released by GSK to the National Cancer Institute’s bioinformatics grid. It has been reported that over 900 researchers actively contribute to this grid from across the industry, research institutes, academia and NGOs. Many believe that this initiative will further gain momentum to encourage many more academic institutions, researchers and even smaller companies to add speed to the drug discovery pathways and at the same time make the NCEs/NMEs coming through such process much less expensive and affordable to a large section of the society, across the globe.
The Alzheimer’s Disease Neuroimaging Initiative (ADNI) is another example of a Private Public Partnership (PPP) project with an objective ‘to define the rate of progress of mild cognitive impairment and Alzheimer’s disease, develop improved methods for clinical trials in this area and provide a large database which will improve design of treatment trials’.
Recently announced ‘Open invitation’ strategy of GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) to discover innovative drugs for malaria is yet another example where GSK has collaborated with European Bioinformatics Institute and U.S. National Library of Medicine to make the details of the molecule available to the researchers free of cost with an initial investment of US $ 8 million to set up the research facility in Spain involving around 60 scientists from across the world to work in this facility.

‘Open Innovation’ in India:

In India, Dr. Samir Brahmachari, the Director General of the Council of Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR) is the champion of the OSDD movement. CSIR believes that for a developing country like India OSDD will help the common man to meet his unmet medical needs in the areas of neglected tropical diseases.

‘Open Innovation’ project of CSIR is a now a global platform to address the neglected tropical diseases like, tuberculosis, malaria, leishmaniasis by the best research brains of the world working together for a common cause.

To fund this initiative of the CSIR the Government of India has allocated around U.S $40 million and an equivalent amount of funding would be raised from international agencies and philanthropists.

Success of ‘Open Innovation’ initiative of CSIR:

Sometime in late November 2009, I received a communication from the CSIR informing that their OSDD project, since its launch in September 2009, has crossed 2000 registered users in a very short span of time. The pace of increasing number of registered users indeed reflects the confidence that this initiative has garnered among the interested researchers across the world.

CSIR has indicated that the next big leap planned by them in the area of ‘Open Innovation’ is to completely re-annotate the MTb genome for which they have already launched a project titled ‘Connect to Decode’ 2010.

Conclusion:

Currently pharmaceutical R&D is an in-house initiative of innovator global companies. Mainly for commercial security reasons only limited number of scientists working for the respective innovator companies will have access to these projects.

‘Open Innovation’ on the other hand, has the potential to create a win-win situation, bringing in substantial benefits to both the pharmaceutical innovators and the patients.

The key advantage of the ‘Open Innovation’ model will be substantial reduction in the costs and time of R&D projects, which could be achieved through voluntary participation of a large number of researchers/Scientists/Institutions in key R&D initiatives. This in turn will significantly reduce the ‘mind-to-market’ time of more affordable New Chemical/Molecular Entities in various disease areas.

Thus, to answer to ‘Quo Vadis, Pharmaceutical R&D’, I reckon, ‘Open Innovation’ model could well be an important direction for tomorrow’s global R&D initiatives to improve access to innovative affordable Medicines to a larger number of ailing patients of the world, meeting their unmet medical needs, more effectively and with greater care.

From Cross-Licensing to ‘Patent Pools’ and… India: Will there be a ground swell?

Posted on May 23, 2011 by Tapan Ray

Since many years, the global pharmaceutical industry has been making effective commercial use of cross-licensing, however, by and large, the industry still does not seem to be quite in favor of ‘Patent Pools’ for various reasons.

The ‘Patent Pool’, as I understand is defined as, “an agreement between different owners, including companies, governments and academic bodies to make available patent rights on non-exclusive basis to manufacturers and distributor of drugs against payment of royalties.”

Thus one of the often repeated key benefits of the ‘Patent Pools’, as considered by its proponents, is that the system enables the use of innovation against payment of royalties, without the risk of patent infringement. Many believe that the concept of ‘Patent Pool’ can play an immensely useful role for productive use of Intellectual Property (IP) in the global pharmaceutical industry.

The difference between cross-licensing and ‘Patent Pools’:

The basic purposes of both Cross-Licensing and patent pools may appear to be similar, however the key difference is that in ‘Patent Pool’ system the patent owners usually agree to license to third parties who may not even contribute any patents to the pool. Moreover, ‘Patent Pools’ involve a large number of parties with its scope being narrow and well standardized.

“Patent Pools”- still a contentious issue:

The concept of ‘Patent Pools’ has become a contentious issue within the global pharmaceutical industry. Some opinion leaders vehemently argue that creation of a ‘patent pool’ will bring down the cost of any innovation significantly and save huge time, ensuring speedier and improved access to such medicines to a vast majority of ailing population across the world. This section of the experts also feels, “in the case of blocking patents as a commercial strategy, it would only be a reasonable method for making the innovation publicly available.”
In the midst of this high decibel debate, on February 13, 2009, ‘The Guardian’ reported the following comment of Andrew Witty, CEO of GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) on the same issue:
“GSK will put any chemicals or processes over which it has intellectual property rights that are relevant to finding drugs for neglected diseases into a patent pool, so they can be explored by other researchers”.
Andrew Witty in that interview also commented, “I think it’s the first time anybody’s really come out and said we’re prepared to start talking to people about pooling our patents to try to facilitate innovation in areas where, so far, there hasn’t been much progress… I think the shareholders understand this and it’s my job to make sure I can explain it. I think we can. I think it’s absolutely the kind of thing large global companies need to be demonstrating, that they’ve got a more balanced view of the world than short-term returns.”
Quoting Andrew Witty, ‘The Guardian’ reported, “his stance may not win him friends in other drug companies, but he is inviting them to join him in an attempt to make a significant difference to the health of people in poor countries”.
Yet another ‘out of box’ comment:
As if to prove ‘The Guardian’ right on their above comment, during his visit to India on March 2010, though in a slightly different context, Witty made the following comments, while answering a question of “The Economic Times”:
“I am relatively relaxed with the Indian regulatory environment. The government has made it clear about the direction to have an Intellectual Property (IP) mechanism and to be TRIPS compliant. Some people are unrealistic and want everything to change overnight. But we should be absolutely realistic about pricing to keep it affordable for India. If someone has the IP right, it does not mean that it should make it inaccessible for lower income people. Over the next 10-15 years India will become increasingly IP defined market.”
The rationale for ‘Patent Pools’ system:
Many experts in this area feel that the conventional patent system does not really work for the diseases of the poor, all over the world. Though the concept of ‘Patent Pools’ is quite new in the global pharmaceutical industry, this system is being very successfully and widely practiced within the Information Technology (IT) industry. ‘Patent Pool’ system, if effectively used, as stated earlier, can also help the global pharmaceutical companies to improve access of such medicines to many more developing countries of the world.

Key requirements for the ‘Patent Pools’:
Careful identification of various patents, which will be essential for the pool, will be one of the key requirements to initiate a ‘Patent Pool’ system. It makes the need to obtain individual patents, required in the process of a drug discovery, less important.

National Institute of Health (NIH), USA initiated the process:
On September 30, 2010, NIH became the first patent-holder to share its intellectual property with the Medicines Patent Pool, supported by UNITAID, by licensing a patent for ‘Darunavir’ to increase access of HIV and AIDS medicines to the suffering patients in the developing countries of the world.

UNITAID, an innovative global health financing mechanism is funded by a levy on airline tickets. This initiative was co-founded by the U.K, France, Norway, Brazil and Chile at the United Nations General Assembly in 2006 and buys drugs against HIV/AIDS, malaria and tuberculosis.
The above move of NIH towards the noble cause was appreciated by many all over the world, urging the global pharmaceutical industry, in general, to take a leaf out of it.

India was kept out of UNITAID “Patent Pool”:

In 2009-10, UNITAID reportedly had opposed the move to include countries like, India, China and Brazil from the proposed patent pool for AIDS drugs. At least seven civil society groups from India like, the Centre for Trade and Development, the National Working Group on Patent Laws, the All India Peoples Science Network openly stated that UNITAID does not intend to share the patent pool implementation plan with these civil society groups of India. They also alleged that this development in UNITAID will have a significant impact on the ability of Indian Pharmaceutical industry to manufacture low-cost versions of patented HIV/AIDS medicines for the developing countries of the world.

At that time, it was also reported that large global pharmaceutical players had indicated to UNITAID that they could contribute to the ‘patent pool’ on a selective basis, however, over 100 middle income countries such as India, Brazil and China should not have rights to manufacture generic versions of these HIV/AIDS medicines. They felt that ‘patent pool’ will be meaningless if poor countries, who do not have the capability to manufacture these medicines, are included in the process.

However, according to UNITAID, “the patent pool in no way a means to replace or override other provisions contained in the Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) Agreement or the Doha Declaration on TRIPS and Public Health. The patent pool represents an additional tool to increase access to HIV treatment, and an opportunity for patent holders to voluntarily contribute to the attainment of crucial health-related goals endorsed by the international community.”

GSK kick-started the process:

Andrew Witty of GSK is undoubtedly the first CEO of a global pharmaceutical company to announce a ‘Patent Pool’ system for research on 16 neglected tropical diseases like, tuberculosis, malaria, filariasis, leprosy and leishmaniasis. GSK has, in a real sense, kick started the process by putting more than 500 granted pharmaceuticals patents and over 300 pending applications in the ‘Patent Pool’.

J&J followed suit:

Johnson and Johnson (J&J) in January 2011 expressed its willingness to assist ‘Medicines Patent Pool Foundation (MPPF)’ to implement ‘Medicines Patent Pool (MPP)’, which aims to improve access to affordable and appropriate HIV medicines in developing countries. MPPF works through voluntary licensing of patents for public health interest, at the same time extending compensation to the innovator pharmaceutical companies.

‘Medicines Patent Pools’:

On April 7, 2011. ‘Intellectual Property Watch’ reported that the ‘Medicines Patent Pools’, an initiative to improve access to HIV drugs through voluntary licenses of patented drugs, have launched a new database of patent information on HIV medicines in developing countries. The database has been developed with the support of the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) and Regional Patent Offices across the world. Intellectual Property Watch

Key issues with the ‘Patent Pools’ concept:
The report from a WHO conference held in April, 2006 ‘Innovation Strategy Today’ indicates that the start-up cost of a ‘Patent Pools’ for vaccines will be economically viable only if more than 25 participants holding relevant patents join the initiative.
Moreover, various types of litigation related to patents, which are being currently witnessed within the global pharmaceutical industry, could also be an impediment in getting more patents in the pool.

Recommended ‘General Principles’ for “Patent Pools”:
International Federation of Pharmaceutical Manufacturers and Associations (IFPMA), Switzerland, suggested the following guidelines for the ‘Patent Pool’ initiatives:
1. Patent pools should be voluntary associations of entities formed without coercion 2. Objectives of any patent pool should be clearly defined 3. Patent pools should complement rather than replace elements of existing intellectual property regimes 4. Rights and obligations of contributors and licensees of contributed rights should be clear 5. Patent pools should reduce transaction costs, and not increase administrative costs, relative to other options such as direct licensing
Conclusion:
There is certainly an urgent need to communicate more on how innovation and IPR could help rather than hinder public health. At the same time all stakeholders of the pharmaceutical industry need to come out with a robust solution to ever increasing problem of improving access to innovative medicines to the ailing population of the world, in the best possible way.
However, these are still very early days, before such a disrupting idea get widely accepted by the global innovators and implemented religiously not just for the ‘public health interest’, across the world, but also to create a sustainable business model to harvest ‘Fortune at the Bottom of the Pyramid’.

Only future will tell us whether or not the ‘Patent Pools’ initiatives become the footprints on the sands of time as the global pharmaceutical industry keeps navigating through the challenges of change.

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.

Biologic Medicine: Ushers in a different ‘Mega Race’ for inorganic growth

Posted on May 2, 2011 by Tapan Ray

During the last several years the success of biologics compared to conventional small-molecule drugs to meet the unmet needs of patients, is gradually but surely changing the area of focus of pharmaceutical R&D altogether, making the biotech companies interesting targets for M&A. Over a period of so many years, the small-molecule blockbuster drugs business model made pharmaceuticals a high-margin industry. However, it now appears that the low hanging fruits to make blockbuster drugs have mostly been plucked.

These low hanging fruits involved therapy areas like, anti-ulcerants, anti-lipids, anti-diabetics, cardiovascular, anti-psychotic etc. and their many variants, which were relatively easy R&D targets to manage chronic ailments. Hereafter, the chances of successfully developing drugs for cure of these chronic ailments, with value addition, would indeed be a very tough call.

Deploying expensive resources towards finding a cure for so called ‘chronic diseases’ may also not promise a strong commercial incentive, as the treatment for ulcer, lipid disorders, diabetics, hypertension etc. are currently continues lifelong for a patient and a cure will limit the treatment to a short to medium term period.

Greater promise in biologics:

On the other hand, the bottom-line impact of a successful R&D outcome with safer and effective drugs to treat intractable ailments like,various types of cancer and blood disorders, auto-immune and Central Nervous System (CNS) related diseases, neurological disorders such as Parkinson’s, Myasthenia gravis, Multiple Sclerosis, Alzheimer’s diseases etc., will be huge. It is believed that well targeted drugs of biologic origin could well be successful treatment for such intractable diseases.

The golden opportunity of meeting the unmet needs of the patients with effective biologics, especially in high-growth therapeutics, as mentioned above, has given the M&A activities in the pharma-biotech space an unprecedented thrust.

Biologic versus conventional drugs:

Biologics	Conventional and NME drugs
Large molecules (>5000 molecular weight)	Small molecules (~500 molecular weight)
Bio-technologically produced or isolated from living sources	Chemically synthesized
Complex structure/mixtures (tertiary structure, glycosylated)	Simple well-defined structure
High target specificity	Less target specificity
Generally parenteral administration (e.g., intravenous)	Oral administration possible (pills)

(Source: MoneyTreeTM Report. PWC, 2009)

According to IMS, Biologics contribute around 17% of global pharmaceutical sales and generated a revenue of US$120 billion MAT March 2009. As we see today, gradually more and more global pharmaceutical companies, who used to spend around 15% to 20% of their annual sales in R&D, are channelizing a large part of the same to effectively compete in a fast evolving market of biologics through mainly M&A route. This is also driven by their strategic intent to make good the loss in income from the blockbuster drugs going off patent and at the same time fast dwindling R&D pipeline.

A shift from small molecule based blockbuster model to a biologics-based blockbuster one:

Frost & Sullivan forecasts a shift from small molecules-based blockbuster model to a biologics-based blockbuster one for the global pharmaceutical majors, just as biologics like Enbrel ,Remicade, Avastin, Rituxan and Humira, as mentioned below, have already proved to be money spinners.

The top 10 global brands in 2009:

Rank	Product	Chemical/Biologic	Global Sales US$ Mn
1	Lipitior	Chemical	12,511
2	Plavix	Chemical	9,492
3.	Seretide/Advair	Chemical	7,791
4.	Enbrel	Biologic	6,295
5.	Diovan	Chemical	6,013
6.	Remicade	Biologic	5,924
7.	Avastin	Biologic	5,744
8.	Rituxan	Biologic	5,620
9.	Humira	Biologic	5,559
10.	Seroquel	Chemical	5,121

(Source: EvaluatePharma)

Faster growth of biologics attracting attention of large pharma players:

Currently, faster growth of biologics as compared to conventional new chemical entities is driven by novel technologies and highly targeted approach, the final outcome of which is being more widely accepted by both physicians and patients. The large global pharmaceutical companies are realizing it pretty fast. The type and quality of their recent acquisitions, vindicate this point.

Mega race for biologics and vaccines:

Driven by the above factor, in 2009 Pfizer acquired Wyeth for US $68 billion, Roche acquired Genentech for US $ 47 billion and Merck acquired Schering-Plough for US $ 41 billion. Only the above three M&A are valued more than US $ 150 billion and that too at a time of global financial meltdown.

Acquisition of Wyeth enabled Pfizer to expand its product-mix with vaccines, animal health and consumer products businesses and at the same time leveraging from Wyeth’s biologics capability.

Similarly, Merck got tempted to acquire Schering-Plough mainly because of latter’s rich R&D pipeline with biologics.

Roche, which was basically a pharmaceutical company, post-acquisition of Genentech, became a major bio-pharmaceutical company with a great promise to deliver in the years ahead.

Other M&As, which would signify a shift toward the growing space for biologics are the acquisition of MedImmune by AstraZeneca and Insmed by Merck and the recent bid of Sanofi-Aventis for Genzyme.

Faster growth of biologics:

As mentioned above, despite patent cliff, biologics continue to contribute better than small molecules to overall growth of the R&D based global pharmaceutical industry. Most of these biologics are sourced either through acquisition or collaborative arrangements.

Currently cash strapped biotech companies with molecules ready for human clinical trials or with target molecules in the well sought after growth areas like, monoclonal antibodies, vaccines, cell or gene therapies, therapeutic protein hormones, cytokines and tissue growth factors, etc. are becoming attractive acquisition targets, mainly by large pure pharmaceutical companies with deep pockets.

Another M&A model:

Besides mega race for mega acquisitions, on the other hand, relatively smaller pharmaceutical players have started acquiring venture-backed biotech companies to enrich their product pipelines with early-stage drugs at a much lesser cost. For example, with the acquisition of Calistoga for US $ 600 million and venture-backed Arresto Biosciences and CGI Pharmaceuticals, Gilead known for its HIV drugs, expanded into blood cancer, solid tumor and inflammatory diseases. In 2009 the same Gilead acquired CV Therapeutics for US $1.4billion to build a portfolio for cardiovascular drugs.

Smaller biotech companies, because of their current size do not get engaged in very large deals, unlike the top pharma players, but make quick, decisive and usually successful deals.

Another commercial advantage for biologics – lesser generic competition :

After patent expiry of a New Chemical Entity (NCE), innovators’ brands become extremely vulnerable to cut throat generic competition with as much as 90% price erosion, as these small molecules are relatively easy to replicate by many generic manufacturers and the process of getting their regulatory approval is not as stringent as biosimilar drugs in most of the markets of the world.

On the other hand biologics, which involve difficult, complex and expensive biological processes for development together with stringent regulatory requirements for getting marketing approval of biosimilar drugs especially in the developed markets of the world like, EU and USA, offer some significant brand protection from generic competition for quite some time, even after patent expiry.

It is for this reason, brands like the following ones are expected to go strong for some more time to come, without any significant competition from biosimilar drugs:

Brand	Company	Launch date
Rituxan	Roche/Biogen idec	1997
Herceptin	Roche	1998
Remicade	Centocor/J&J	1998
Enbrel	Amgen/Pfizer	1998

Change of appetite:

In my view, the voracious appetite of large pharmaceutical companies for inorganic growth through mega M&As, will ultimately subside for various compelling reasons. Instead, smaller biotech companies, especially with products in Phase I or II of clinical trials without further resource to take them to subsequent stages of development, will be prime targets for acquisition by the pharma majors at an attractive valuation.

Conclusion:

Although the large pharma majors are experimenting with pure biotech companies in terms of acquisitions and alliances, it will be interesting to see the long term ‘DNA Compatibility’ between these companies’ business models, organization and work/employee culture and market outlook to improve their overall global business performance, significantly. Only future will tell us whether or not just restructuring of the R&D set up of companies like, Pfizer, Merck, Roche and perhaps Sanofi-aventis at a later date, helps synergizing the overall R&D productivity of the merged companies.

In this context, Frost & Sullivan had commented: “Widely differing cultures at Roche and Genentech could make retaining top scientists a huge challenge. Roche is Swiss and a stickler for precision and time, while Genentech has a more ‘Californian attitude’ and is laid back and efficient in its work”.

Though the long-term overall financial impact of the ‘mega race for mega deals’, as mentioned above, is less clear to me, acquisition of biotech companies, especially well thought through smaller ones, seems to be a pretty smart move towards inorganic growth by the global innovator companies.

By: Tapan J Ray

‘Frugal Innovation’ in Healthcare: Ahoy!

Posted on April 18, 2011 by Tapan Ray

Patented new products have been the prime growth driver of the research based pharmaceutical companies, the world over. Probably because of this reason the world has seen over a period of time about four different molecules of H2 Blockers and six different molecules of proton pump inhibitors to treat peptic ulcers, nine varieties of statins to treat lipid disorders, ten variants of calcium channel blockers to treat hypertension, three new compounds of similar drugs to address erectile dysfunction and the list could go on. Most of these molecules attained the blockbuster status, backed by cutting edge innovative marketing strategies.

Whether all these patented molecules met significant unmet needs of the patients could well be a contentious point. However, the key point is that all these drugs did help fueling growth of the global pharmaceutical industry very significantly, including our own Indian Pharmaceutical companies, though through immaculate copying during pre-product patent regime of before January, 2005.

Since last few years, because of various reasons, the number of market launch of such patented products has greatly reduced. To add fuel to the fire, 2011-12 will witness patent expiries of many blockbuster drugs, including the top revenue grosser of the world, depleting the growth potential of many large research-based global pharmaceutical companies.

Blockbuster drug ‘Business Model’ is no longer sustainable:

The blockbuster model of growth engine of the innovator companies effectively relies on a limited number of ‘winning horses’ to achieve the business goal and meeting the Wall Street expectations. In 2007, depleting pipeline of the blockbuster drugs hit a new low in the developed markets of the world. It is estimated that around U.S. $ 140 billion of annual turnover from blockbuster drugs will get almost shaved-off due to patent expiry by the year 2016. IMS reported that in 2010 more than U.S. $ 30 billion was adversely impacted because of patent expiry. Another set of blockbuster drugs with similar value turnover will go off patent in 2011. It will not be out of context to mention, that the year before last around U.S. $ 27 billion worth of patented drugs had reportedly gone off-patent.

Decline in R&D productivity with a thin silver lining though:

The decline in R&D productivity has not been due to lack of investments. It has been reported that between 1993 and 2004, R&D expenditure by the pharmaceutical industry rose from U.S. $ 16 billion to around U.S. $ 40 billion. However, during the same period the number of applications for New Chemical Entities (NCEs) filed annually to the U.S. FDA grew by just 7%.

It was reported that total global expenditure for pharmaceutical R&D reached U.S. $ 70 billion in 2007 and is estimated to be around U.S $ 90 billion by the end of the year just gone by. 75% of this expenditure was incurred by the U.S alone. It is interesting to note that only 22 NMEs received marketing approval by the US FDA during this period against 53 in 1996, when expenditure was almost less than half of what was incurred in 2007 towards R&D.

The silver linings:

There seem to be following two silver linings in the present scenario, as reported by IMS:

Number of Phase I and Phase II drugs in the pipeline is increasing.
R&D applications for clinical trials in the U.S. rose by 11.6% to a record high of 662 last year.

Funding high cost R&D will be a challenge:

Patent expiry of so many blockbusters during this period will obviously fuel the growth of generic pharmaceutical business, especially in the large developed markets of the world. The market exclusivity for 180 days being given to the first applicant with a paragraph 4 certification in the U.S. is, indeed, a very strong incentive, especially for the generic pharmaceutical companies of India.

In a scenario like this, funding of high cost R&D projects is becoming a real challenge.

Cut in R&D Expenditure has already begun:

Following its acquisition of Wyeth in 2008, Pfizer announced plans to reduce their R&D budget from the US $11 billion to between $8 and $8.5 billion by 2012. Similarly, GSK also announced a reduction of £500 million from its costs by 2012 and half of these costs are from their R&D budget.

As reported by Chemistry World in January 2010, “AstraZeneca announced its plans to reduce around 1800 R&D positions as part of a restructuring process that will see 8000 jobs go as it looks to reduce its costs by $1 billion a year by 2014”.

The time for ‘Frugal Innovation’:

In a new and fast evolving scenario when the erstwhile ‘Blockbuster Drugs Business Model’ with commensurate huge R&D spends does no longer seem to be a practical proposition. Unmet needs in the healthcare space should now be met with cost efficient ‘Frugal Innovation’, which has already dawned in the healthcare space of India.

April 15, 2010 issue of ‘The Economist’ in an article titled, “First break all the rules – The charms of frugal innovation” has described some of health related ‘Frugal Innovations’ as follows:

Bangalore Center of General Electric (GE) has come out with a low cost hand-held electrocardiogram (ECG) called ‘Mac 400’, which has reduced the cost of an ECG test to just US $1 per patient.
Tata Consultancy Services (TCS) has come out with lower-tech, yet robust, portable and relatively cheap water filter, which uses rice husks to purify water. This water filter could provide even to a large family an abundant supply of bacteria-free water for an initial investment of about US $24 and a recurring expense of about US $4 for a new filter every few months. Tata Chemicals, which is making the devices, is planning to produce 1m over the next year and hopes for an eventual market of 100m.

11^th Five Year Plan of India and ‘Frugal Innovation’:

The panel set up for the appraisal of the 11^th Five Year Plan of India observed that innovation needs to be “inclusive” and “frugal”.

To accelerate growth of the nation and to meet the unmet needs particularly in healthcare and education, besides others, India needs more ‘frugal innovation’ that produces more ‘frugal cost’ and high quality products and services, quite affordable to the common man of the country.

It also highlighted that a paradigm which bases its assessment of innovativeness on the quantum of expensive inputs deployed, like the numbers of scientists, expenditures on R&D etc. will always tend to produce expensive innovations because the cost of innovation must be recovered in the prices of the products it produces.

The above appraisal report goes on saying:

“This is indeed the dilemma of the ‘innovative’ companies in the pharmaceutical industry. They find it economically difficult to justify development of low cost solutions for ailments that affect poor people.”

‘National Innovation Council’ moots ‘inclusive growth’ through innovation:

To encourage the culture and process of ‘inclusive growth’ through innovation in India, Mr. Sam Pitroda , the Chairman of the ‘National Innovation Council’ had mooted a proposal for creation of a Rs 1,000 Crore corpus in the country, where the Government of India should initially take 10% to 20% share of the corpus and then its equities will be bought by the public.

Conclusion:

The R&D model of companies like GE and TCS, as mentioned above, are taking the affordability of the common man as a starting point and then working backwards to satisfy unmet needs of the people, just as what Tata Motors did for the ‘Nano Car’ in India.

In an environment of continuous diminishing return from the big ticket R&D expenditure of the global pharmaceutical companies, across the world, I sincerely hope and pray that the world witnesses increasing number of cost effective ‘Frugal Innovation’ in healthcare, including medicines, sooner than later…just for the sake of humanity.

By: Tapan J Ray

Tapan Ray in ‘Focus Reports’, March 2011

Posted on April 4, 2011 by Tapan Ray

FR: Our last report on India dates back to 2006, right after the Patent Law was passed. What developments have you seen happening in the industry since then?

TR: There has been a paradigm shift with the Product Patent Regime coming in place in 2005. The era from 1970 to 2005 has been a very successful era of reverse engineering, when Indian manufacturers were copying and marketing innovative products in India at a fraction of their international price. Nevertheless, this also required talent, for which India had brilliant process chemists. However, the country eventually realized that reverse engineering model would not truly serve the longer term advancement of the economy in creating a conducive ecosystem to foster innovation. This realization process started in 1990 and was reinforced after signing the WTO Agreement in 1995. After the ten-year transition period, the patent law came into force in January 2005.

Since around 2005 Indian companies, which had mainly been relying on cost efficient processes, started investing in the drug discovery research. There are now at least 10 Indian companies engaged in basic research, while around 32 New Chemical Entities (NCEs) are at various stages of development.

This significant step that the country has taken so far, could not have been possible without a conscious decision to move away from the paradigm of replication to the new paradigm of innovation. More importantly, this shift has not happened at the cost of fast growing generic pharmaceutical industry in the country. Branded generics continue to grow rapidly in the new paradigm.

Today, branded generics constitute over 99% of the domestic pharmaceutical market. Of course, according to McKinsey (2007), the share of patented medicines is expected to increase to 10% by 2015. Even in that scenario 90% of the market will still constitute with branded generics in value terms.

FR: At the same time, companies are still only spending some 4% of their revenues on R&D, while internationally these numbers amount up to 12%. Many of the people in the industry seem to still see the future of India for the next 10 years to remain in manufacturing. Is innovation really the story of India right now?

TR: As I mentioned earlier, around 32 NCEs are at various stages of development from pre-clinical to Phase III. Thus, what Indian companies have achieved since 2005, is, indeed remarkable. If you now look at the investments made by the Indian pharmaceutical companies in R&D, as a percentage of turnover, you will notice an ascending trend. Though the R&D ecosystem in India cannot be compared with the developed world just yet, India is catching up.

FR: In some previous interviews we have conducted, concerns were raised over the Indian industry, saying that the local companies are selling off to international players. What is your take on this?

TR: In India, we all express a lot of sentiments and are generally emotional in nature. These are not bad qualities by any standard. However, such expressions should ideally be supported by hard facts. Otherwise these expressions cannot be justified.

Consolidation process within the industry is a worldwide phenomenon and is also taking place in India. One of the apprehensions of such consolidation process in India is that drug prices would go up, as a consequence. In my view, all such apprehensions should be judged by what has already happened in our country by now, in this area.

One example we can cite is the Ranbaxy-Daiichi-Sankyo deal, an acquisition which has not at all led to an increase in Ranbaxy’s product prices. Similarly, the acquisition of India-based Shantha Biotech by the French pharmaceutical major, Sanofi-Aventis did not lead to any increase in product prices either. It is difficult to make out how could possibly the drug prices go up when we have an effective national price regulator called National Pharmaceutical Pricing Authority (NPPA) in India? Currently, 100% of the pharmaceutical market in the country is regulated by NPPA in one way or the other.

India is currently having a drug policy which came into force way back in 1995. As per this drug policy, any company which increases its product price which are outside price control, by more than 10% in a year, will be called for an explanation by the NPPA. Without a satisfactory explanation, the concerned product – not the product category – will be brought under price control, that too for good. In addition, intensive cut-throat competition has made pharmaceutical product prices in India the cheapest in the world, even lower than in the neighboring countries such as Bangladesh, Pakistan and Sri Lanka. Moreover, if the potential to increase prices exists, why would any company wait for an acquisition in a highly fragmented pharmaceutical market in India?

Many of the concerns are, therefore, difficult to justify due to lack of factual data. In fact, on the contrary, the presence of multinational pharmaceutical companies in India is good for the country. These companies with their international expertise and resources would help India to build capacity in terms of training and creating a world-class talent pool. Indian companies, therefore, should consider to take more and more initiatives to partner and collaborate with these MNCs to create a win-win situation for India.

Another key advantage is in the area of market penetration. Market penetration through value-added innovative marketing has happened and has been happening all over the world; India should not let go this opportunity.

FR: In that case, how do you feel about some of the proposed protectionist measures such as a 49% cap on Foreign Direct Investment (FDI)?

TR: This may, once again, be related to the strong local sentiments. India needs financial reforms and wants to attract more and more FDI. The country wants to liberalize the process of FDI and, to the best of my knowledge, any step to move backward in this area should not be contemplated.

It is also worth mentioning that the acquisitions that have taken place were not of any hostile nature. Both Indian companies and MNCs have their own sets of skills, competencies and best practices. Both cost revenue and value synergy through such consolidation process could be made beneficial for the country.

Without commenting on any specific cases, I believe India has taken significant steps to encourage and protect innovation by putting in place the product patent Act in 2005. However, there are some additional steps that the Government should take to further strengthen the process, such as fast-track courts that can quickly decide on the cases of patent infringements. Another example is that when any company will apply for marketing approval for a product, the regulator will upload the same on its website. This is an easy way for other players to detect patent infringement and start taking counter-measures at an early stage. These are examples of steps that can be taken to create a proper ecosystem without amending the law.

FR: You mentioned the paradigm shift towards innovation earlier, to some extent a similar path as China. How innovative has India become in this respect and is it sufficient in terms of clinical trials and other related aspects of the sector?

TR: With regards to attracting FDI in areas such as R&D and clinical trials, India at present is far behind China. The reason for this, as said earlier, is that the country should try to analyse why the innovator companies are not preferring India to China in these areas. Simultaneously, there is a need to assess the expectations of the innovative companies from India in various areas of IPR. One such factor that is bothering the global innovative companies is the absence of regulatory data protection in India. The Government should seriously ponder over this need and take active steps towards this direction as was proposed by ” Satwant Reddy Committee in 2007.”

FR: In your view, what is the industry going to look like in the coming years?

TR: I do not expect a radical shift in the way the Pharmaceutical Industry will be operating in the next few years. Changes will take place gradually and, perhaps, less radically. The increase of the share of patented medicines to 10% of the market share by 2015 as was forecasted by McKinsey in 2007, in my opinion, is rather ambitious. We will certainly see more and more patented products in the market, but it will be slow and gradual unless corrective measures are taken to tighten the loose knots in the Patent Amendment Act 2005, as stated earlier. As more and more Indian companies will start embracing an innovation-driven business model, the strengths and the international experience of the MNCs in this area should be leveraged to catapult the Indian pharmaceutical industry to a much higher growth trajectory.

The interview is available at the following link:

http://www.pharma.focusreports.net/#state=Interview&id=0

By: Tapan J Ray

Fostering ‘Innovation’ and protecting of ‘Public Health Interest’: A formidable task for the new TF (taskforce)

Posted on March 28, 2011 by Tapan Ray

‘The Lancet’, March 19, 2011 in its article titled “India: access to affordable drugs and the right to health”, where the authors reiterated:

‘The right to health is a fundamental right in India, judicially recognized under article 21 of the Constitution…Access to affordable drugs has been interpreted to be a part of right to health’.

Keeping in view of this ‘fundamental right’ of the citizens, public health related issues will continue to be treated as a subject of ‘Public Interest’ in the country.

At the same time, no one can wish away the fact that unmet medicinal needs of the ailing patients can only be met through discovery of innovative drugs. Hence, an innovation friendly ecosystem must necessarily be created in the country, simultaneously. This throws open the dual challenge to the government in the healthcare space of the nation – charting an appropriate pathway to foster a climate for innovation and at the same time protecting ‘Public Health Interest’ of its citizens.

The recent admirable response of the Ministry of Health:

Considering this dual healthcare related needs of the country, on March 15, 2011, Mr Ghulam Nabi Azad, the Minister of Health and Family Welfare, announced the formation of a 12-member task force that will evolve the following strategies under the chairmanship of V.M. Katoch, Secretary, Department of Health Research and Director-General, ICMR and will submit its report within three months.

Evolving a short, medium and long-term policy and strategy to make India a hub for drug discovery, research and development.
Evolving strategies to further the interests of Indian pharma industry in the light of issues related to intellectual property rights and recommend strategies to capitalise the opportunity of $60 to $80 billion drugs going off-patent over the next five years.
Evolve policy measures to assure national drugs security by promoting indigenous production of bulk drugs, preventing takeover of Indian pharma industry by multi-national corporations, drug pricing, promotion of generic drugs
Recommend measures to assure adequate availability of quality generic drugs at affordable prices.

Indian Pharmaceutical Industry is on a growth spree:

The pharmaceutical industry of India is currently playing a key role in promoting and sustaining development in the healthcare space of India. Due to significant cost arbitrage, educated and skilled manpower and cheap labor force among others, the industry is set to establish itself as a global force to reckon with, especially in the areas of generic formulations business, Contract Research and Manufacturing Services (CRAMS).

Estimates and Perspectives:

The pharma industry is growing at around 1.5-1.6 times the Gross Domestic Product growth of India
Currently, India ranks third in the world in terms of volume of manufacturing pharmaceutical products
The Indian pharmaceutical industry is expected to grow at a rate of around 15 % till 2015
The retail pharmaceutical market in India is expected to cross US$ 20 billion by 2015
According to a study by FICCI-Ernst & Young India will open a probable US$ 8 billion market for MNCs selling patented drugs in India by 2015
The number of pharmaceutical retailers is estimated to grow from 5.5 lakh to 7.5 lakhs by 2015
At least 2 lakh more pharma graduates would be required by the Indian pharmaceutical industry by 2015
The Indian drug and pharmaceuticals sector attracted foreign direct investment to the tune of US$ 1.43 billion from April 2000 to December 2008 (Ministry of Commerce and Industry), which is expected to increase significantly along with the policy reform measures and increased Government investment (3%-4%) as a percentage of GDP towards healthcare, by 2015
The Minister of Commerce estimates that US$ 6.31 billion will be invested in the domestic pharmaceutical sector
Due to low cost of R&D, the Indian pharmaceutical off-shoring industry is expected to be a US$ 2.5 billion opportunity by 2012

Key growth drivers: Local and Global:

Local:

• Rapidly growing middle class population of the country with increasing disposable income.
• High quality and cost effective domestic generic drug manufacturers are achieving increasing penetration in local, developed and emerging markets.
• Rising per capita income of the population and inefficiency of the public healthcare system will encourage private healthcare systems of various types and scales to flourish.
• High probability of emergence of a robust healthcare financing/insurance model for all strata of society.
• Fast growing in Medical Tourism.
• Evolving combo-business model of global pharmaceutical companies with both patented and generic drugs is boosting local outsourcing and collaboration opportunities.
Global:
Global pharmaceutical industry is going through a rapid process of transformation. The moot question to answer now is how the drug discovery process can meet the unmet needs of the patients and yet remain cost effective.

Cost containment pressure due to various factors is further accelerating this process. CRAMS business, an important outcome of this transformation process, will be the key growth driver for many Indian domestic pharmaceutical players in times to come.

Key Challenges:

Like all other industries, Pharmaceutical Industry in India has its own sets of Challenges and opportunities under which it operates. Some of the challenges the industry faces are:

Unfortunate “Trust Deficit” between the Government and the Industry, especially in pharmaceutical pricing area
Regulatory red tape and lack of initiative towards international harmonization
Inadequate infrastructure and abysmal public delivery system
Lack of adequate number of qualified healthcare professionals
Inadequate innovation friendly ecosystem to encourage R&D
Myopic Drug Policies have failed to deliver. The needs of over 350 million BPL families who cannot afford to buy any healthcare products and services, have not been effectively addressed, as yet
Inability of the government to address the critical issue of ‘80% out of pocket expenditure’ of the common man towards healthcare
Inadequate Public Private Partnership (PPP) initiatives in most of the critical areas of healthcare

Job Creation:

Pharmaceutical sector in India has created employment for approximately 3 million people from 23,000 plus units. Accelerated growth in job creation, will not only open up more opportunities to pharmaceutical professionals, but will also fuel growth opportunities in allied business segments like Laboratory, Scientific instruments, Medical Devices and Pharma machinery manufacturing sectors.

Despite all these, it is worth noting that the Indian pharmaceutical industry is confronting with a major challenge in getting employable workforce with the required skill sets. This issue will grow by manifold, as we move on, if adequate vocational training institutes are not put in place on time to generate employable workforce for the industry.

Government Initiatives are inadequate:

The government of India has started working out some policy and fiscal initiatives, though grossly inadequate, for the growth of the pharmaceutical business in India. Some of the measures adopted by the Government are follows:

Pharmaceutical units are eligible for weighted tax reduction at 175% for the research and development expenditure obtained.
Two new schemes namely, New Millennium Indian Technology Leadership Initiative and the Drugs and Pharmaceuticals Research Program have been launched by the Government.
The Government is contemplating the creation of SRV or special purpose vehicles with an insurance cover to be used for funding new drug research
The Department of Pharmaceuticals is mulling the creation of drug research facilities which can be used by private companies for research work on rent

Encouraging Pharmaceutical Export:

In the recent years, despite economic slowdown being witnessed in the global economy, pharmaceutical exports in India have registered an appreciable growth. Export has emerged as an important growth driver for the domestic pharmaceutical industry with more than 50 % of their total revenue coming from the overseas markets. For the financial year 2008-09 the export of drugs is estimated to be around US $8.25 billion as per the Pharmaceutical Export Council of India (Pharmexil). A survey undertaken by FICCI reported 16% growth in India’s pharmaceutical export during 2009-2010.

Five ‘Strategic Changes’ envisaged:
Five new key strategic changes, in my view, will be as follows:
1. As the country will move towards an integrated and robust healthcare financing system:
• Doctors will no longer remain the sole decision makers for the drugs that they will prescribe to the patients and also the way they will treat the common diseases. Healthcare providers/ medical insurance companies would play a key role in these areas by providing to the doctors well thought out treatment guidelines. • Tough price negotiation with the healthcare providers/ medical insurance companies will be inevitable for a significant proportion of the products that the pharmaceutical companies will sell related to these areas.

• Health Technology Assessment (HTA) or outcome based pricing will play an important role in pricing a healthcare product.
2. An integrated approach towards disease prevention will emerge as equally important as treatment of diseases.
3. A shift from just product marketing to marketing of a bundle of value added comprehensive disease management processes along with the product will be the order of the day
4. More affordable innovative medicines will be available with increasing access to a larger population, as appropriate healthcare financing model is expected to be in place.

5. Over the counter medicines, especially originated from rich herbal resources of India, will curve out a larger share of market, as appropriate regulations will be put in place.

Conclusion:

With the all these evolving trends in the healthcare sector of India, the ball game of the successful domestic Indian pharmaceutical industry is expected to undergo a rapid metamorphosis, as they will require to compete with the global players on equal footing. Those Indian Pharmaceutical companies, who are already global players in their own rights, are already well versed with the nuances of this new game and are expected to offer a tough competition to the global players, especially, in the branded generic space, initially.

However, for some domestic players, the new environment could throw a major challenge and make them vulnerable to the consolidation process, already set in motion within Indian pharmaceutical industry.

The newly formed taskforce will hopefully be able to address all these issues in an integrated way to guide this life-line industry to a much higher growth trajectory to compete effectively not only in the global generic space, but also with the global innovator companies, sooner than later.

So the name of the game is to ‘Foster Innovation’ and protect ‘Public Health Interest’ simultaneously and not one at the cost of the other.

By: Tapan J Ray

PILMAN

A Tapan Ray Website

Tag Archives: Patent

Biologic Drugs: The hunt for the ‘Magic Bullets’ is on

‘Utility Models’: A process of winning in the world of innovation

Open Innovation: Quo Vadis, Pharmaceutical R&D?

From Cross-Licensing to ‘Patent Pools’ and… India: Will there be a ground swell?

Biologic Medicine: Ushers in a different ‘Mega Race’ for inorganic growth

Greater promise in biologics:

‘Frugal Innovation’ in Healthcare: Ahoy!

Tapan Ray in ‘Focus Reports’, March 2011

Fostering ‘Innovation’ and protecting of ‘Public Health Interest’: A formidable task for the new TF (taskforce)