Holistic Disease Treatment Solution: Critical For Pharma Success

Posted on October 29, 2018 by Tapan Ray

The speculation over quite some time has ended now. The most important C-suite office of the world’s top pharma company will find a brand-new occupant at the dawn of a brand-new year, on January 01, 2019. Albert Bourla will now be on the saddle to lead Pfizer moving towards a new horizon of success, in place of Ian Read.

What makes this change interesting to me, is the new leader’s not just shaking up the top team at Pfizer, but his simultaneous announcement for another brand-new C-Suite role in the company – The Chief Digital Officer (CDO). She will ‘lead the company’s digital efforts across research, discovery and business processes.’

Merck & Co. also joined ‘the chief digital officer parade’ on October 17, 2018 when it announced the appointment of chief information and digital officer, also as a member of the company’s Executive Committee. Notwithstanding a few global pharma companies’ have already started creating this role, the timing of this initiative by the top global pharma player, sends an interesting signal to many. Undoubtedly, it is a strategic move, and is surely backed by a profound intent. In this article, while exploring this point I shall try to fathom whether or not any fundamental change is taking shape in the strategic space of pharma business.

A fundamental change is taking shape:

This fundamental change, I reckon, is driven by realization that just discovery of new medicines, high quality manufacturing and high voltage marketing can no longer be regarded as success potent in the industry. There emerges a palpable and growing demand for holistic solutions in the disease treatment process, for optimal clinical outcomes and reduction of the burden of disease.

That several top global pharma companies have recognized this fact, is vindicated by what the Sandoz Division of Novartis acknowledged on its website. It quoted Vas Narasimhan – CEO of Novartis saying: “We are on the verge of a digital revolution across every aspect of the healthcare sector, from the lab bench to the patient’s bedside.”

Interestingly, pharma stakeholders’ interests and expectations, including those of patients, are also progressing in the same direction. This, in turn, is changing the way of leading and managing a pharma business – requiring a kind leadership with specific expertise in several new areas. The new C-suite position for a CDO is a proof of this change gathering strong tailwind.

What prompts this change?

As I see it, besides scores of other associated factors that digital technology offers to all, a single characteristic that stands out is the changing patients’ expectations for optimal clinical outcomes out of an affordable and involved disease treatment process.

This has always been so, but is now changing from mere expectations or just a hope, to patients’ demand, from both physicians and the pharma companies. This is a clear writing on the wall in the days ahead, and all concerned should take note of it, seriously. Does it mean that the broad flowchart of the disease-treatment-process, as I call it, has changed? Before delving into that area, let me briefly explain what exactly I mean by saying so.

A flowchart of the disease-treatment-process:

The broad flowchart for most of the disease-treatment-process, have primarily 6 ‘touchpoints’ or points of references, as I see it, which may be summarized as follows:

Patients – Signs & Symptoms – Doctors – Diagnosis – Medicines – Clinical outcomes

This means, patients with signs and symptoms of a disease come to the doctors. With various diagnostic tests, the disease or a combination of diseases is diagnosed. Then, doctors prescribe medicines or any other required medical interventions for desired clinical outcomes.

Has it changed now?

There doesn’t seem to be any fundamental change in this flowchart even today. But, the way the pharma players cherry-pick their areas of focus from its various touch points, is undergoing a metamorphosis.

As it stands today, to sell medicines – innovative or even generic pharma companies primarily focus on the doctors and off-late on patients – but just a few of them, to offer clinical outcomes better or same as others. In the evolving new paradigm, a successful drug companies would need to focus on each of these six elements of the flowchart with great expertise and sensitivity, from the patients’ perspective.

The position of CDO is expected to be a great enabler to facilitate the process of integrating all the touchpoints in the disease-treatment-flow. This will, in turn, offer a holistic treatment solution for patients – selling more medicines being the endpoint of this objective. If it doesn’t happen, the touchpoints where pharma is not focusing today would be captured soon by the non-pharma tech players. This will make achieving the financial goals of the organization even more difficult.

Let me illustrate this point by adding just one important area from this flowchart to the traditional pharma focus areas. This touchpoint goes hand in hand with the prescription of medicines – medical diagnosis. Providing patient- friendly disease prevention and monitoring tools may be yet another such area.

Current accuracy of medical diagnosis – ‘only correct in 80 percent of cases’:

The above was quoted by Sandoz (a Division of Novartis) in its website. It highlighted that the researchers at John Radcliffe Hospital in Oxford, UK found that several medical diagnoses based on a limited range of factors are only correct in 80 percent of cases. It means ‘a diagnosis may miss imminent heart attacks, or it may lead to an unnecessary operation,’ it said.

The January 31, 2018 article published by Futurism.com - the publishing arm of Futurism, based in New York City, also underscores some interesting facts in this regard, including the above example. Some of these are fascinating, as I quote hereunder:

Researchers at the John Radcliffe Hospital in Oxford, England, developed an AI diagnostics system that’s more accurate than doctors at diagnosing heart disease, at least 80 percent of the time.

At Harvard University, researchers created a “smart” microscope that can detect potentially lethal blood infections with a 95 percent accuracy rate.

A study from Showa University in Yokohama, Japan revealed that a new computer-aided endoscopic system can reveal signs of potentially cancerous growths in the colon with 94 percent sensitivity, 79 percent specificity, and 86 percent accuracy.

In one study, published in December 2017 by JAMA, it was found that deep learning algorithms were able to better diagnose metastatic breast cancer than human radiologists when under a time crunch. While human radiologists may do well when they have unrestricted time to review cases, in the real world a rapid diagnosis could make the difference between life and death for patients.

When challenged to glean meaningful insights from the genetic data of tumor cells, human experts took about 160 hours to review and provide treatment recommendations based on their findings. IBM’s Watson took just ten minutes to deliver the same actionable advice.

Thus, the bottom-line is: Medical or clinical diagnosis is a crucial area where the tech savvy environment can add significant unmet needs to save lives of many. Consequently, this space is emerging as an Eldorado, as it were, for all those who are seriously interested in diving deep in search of a golden future in the related business.

Technological players are making forays:

Several tech companies have sensed the reward of a pot of gold in the above space, despite the journey being quite arduous. Consequently, many of them are coming up with user-friendly and disease-specific digital tools and health apps, compatible with smart phones or smart watches. These help patients monitoring their own health data, independently, and be aware of the disease progression, if any. Simultaneously, it also enables physicians not only to accurately diagnose a disease, but also to keep a careful vigil on the progress of the treatment.

To illustrate the point with an example – say about Apple. The company began making inroads into the healthcare space with health apps and fitness-tracking via iPhone and Apple Watch. Interestingly, riding on partnership and acquisition initiatives, it is now carving a niche for itself to provide complete health records of the users by capturing relevant disease-specific clinical data.

Apple Watch Series 4, for example, has ECG feature and the ability to detect irregular heart-rhythm, which is US-FDA approved. Reports indicate the company is also in the process of developing a non-invasive glucose monitoring tool, besides many others. Curiously, the company has already given a signal to extend the usage of iPhone to a reliable diagnostic tool for many disease conditions. Most important to note is, this concept is fast gaining popularity.

Calls for of a holistic approach in the disease-treatment process-flow:

As this trend keeps going north, many pharma companies are realizing the underlying opportunity to adopt a holistic strategic business approach to move into the new frontier. This would encompass the entire disease-treatment-process-flow with digital technology, across the organization. Before other non-pharma companies firmly position themselves on the saddle while entering into this area, pharma needs to move fast. This calls for an urgent action to collaborate with tech companies in all the critical touchpoints of this flow, including diagnosis. That this realization gas dawned in pharma is evident from a number of related developments. Let me quote just a couple of examples, as follows:

Onduo, a US$500-million diabetes-focused joint venture between Sanofi and Verily Life Sciences, an Alphabet company was founded in September 2016. Onduo recently launched its first product – an app plus, a continuous glucose-monitoring device plus an insulin pump that are all linked together. The Onduo app has a built-in coach (i.e., an electronic assistant) to help patients better manage their diabetes and accomplish their health goals.

GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) and Verily (formerly Google Life Sciences) have formed a joint venture to develop and commercialize bioelectronic medicine – miniaturized nerve implants that modulate electrical impulses to treat certain diseases.

Lack of digital leadership talent within the pharma industry?

It is interesting to note that both the Pfizer and Merck CDOs were recruited from non-pharma companies – Pfizer’s from Quest Diagnostics and Merck’s from Nike. Earlier, in mid 2017, former Walmart CIO was named the Chief Digital and Technology Officer of GlaxoSmithKline. This trend probably brings to the fore, the lack of top digital leadership talent within the pharma industry.

Conclusion:

Increasingly pharma companies are realizing that enormous efforts and money spent in just marketing a drug, is producing a lesser and lesser yield, as the new paradigm unfolds. As we move on, patients no longer will want to buy just a medicine from the pharma players. They will want an integrated solution for prevention, cure or management of a disease.

At the same time, strong technology players, such as Apple, Google, IBM’s Watson are on the verge of capturing a sizeable ground, offering a gamut of patient-friendly offerings in the healthcare space. This would eventually make prescription of digital therapy a new reality. These tech companies are now entering through several virtually open doors in the disease-treatment-flow process, as I call it, primarily covering – diagnosis, disease monitoring and preventive care.

To effectively compete and grow in this environment, drug companies have to cover all the touchpoints of this process, not just the selective ones as are generally happening even today.

Creation of a new C-suite position of Chief Digital Officer to address this issue in a holistic away, across the organization, gives a clear signal to this realization. Thus, I reckon, offering a holistic treatment solution, covering all the touchpoints in the disease-treatment-flow process will be a new normal for pharma, not just for excellence in business, but for a long-term survival too.

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 Policy Execution Gap Limits Access To Affordable Medicines?

Posted on October 15, 2018 by Tapan Ray

“The cost of new drugs is putting increasing pressure on people in both rich and poor countries”- was eloquently expressed in an article, titled “Why do new medicines cost so much, and what can we do about it?”. This was published by “The Guardian” on April 09, 2018.

Almost synchronically, expressing concern on this issue, the World Health Organization (W.H.O) advised the world leaders ‘to take bold new approaches’ for increasing access to medicines for all. A UN high-level panel on ‘access to medicines’ spent almost a year deliberating over related issues. The panel members were from pharma companies, as well as civil society and academics. The final report coming in September, backed de-linkage of the costs of R&D from the eventual price of the drug. Notably, the author who is also the health editor of the above publication, feels that any positive outcome in this direction is unlikely to materialize soon.

The majority of big pharma constituents, with the possible exception of GSK, whose then chief executive Sir Andrew Witty was unenthusiastic about the UN report. Probably because, it supported governments’ right to invoke ‘a get-out’ from the World Trade Organization’s TRIPS agreement. This is to bypass drug patents and make cheaper versions of the respective generic equivalents, in the interests of public health, in accordance with the 2001 Doha declaration. However, the author is hopeful that, “as happened with AIDS, each new crisis over access to medicines – whether concerning a common liver disease or a rare cancer, and particularly over the antibiotics that are under threat and vital to all our lives – is likely to put pressure on companies to find ways to bring the costs of medicines down.”

Stakeholder pressure for increasing access to medicines continues. Even in smaller developed countries, such as Switzerland, a section of the public demands that “Swiss authorities must act to make lifesaving drugs more affordable by introducing compulsory licensing.” Or, one can now see reports saying,“Irish patients are being denied access to nine drugs that are widely available across Europe, largely, on cost grounds.”

Nevertheless, regardless of mounting pressure for drawing a reasonable symmetry between cost of, especially new drugs and their improved access to patients, ongoing status-quo continues. In this article, I shall dwell on this concern from the Indian perspective, focusing on an agonizingly stark implementation-gap related to the current Indian pharma pricing policy.

Under pressure, pharma now recognizes the need for affordable drugs:

Coming under intense pressure of patients and other stakeholders, even the largest trade association of Big Pharma has recently changed its stance on this issue, though clearly sharking any responsibility for the same. It just recognized the need for affordable medicines for improved patient access to treatments by saying: “Too often patients have to fight to access breakthrough medicines that are revolutionizing how we fight disease.” It also accepted the fact that “many Americans are struggling to afford their medicines.”

“We can improve patient access and affordability by moving toward a system that prioritizes results for patients. Biopharmaceutical companies are working with insurers to develop innovative and flexible ways to pay for medicines that focus on results, lower out-of-pocket costs and enable patients to access the right treatments the first time” – it added.

What it really means:

What it really means ‘treatment outcomes-based drug pricing’ or ‘value-based drug pricing (VBP)’. In other words, a situation where drug prices are set in line with their real and demonstrated clinical and economic value to patients, against other available products. This model will also ensure that patients’ money doesn’t get wasted from drugs that aren’t effective on them. The VBP model is, thus, significantly different from product pricing, based on ‘undisclosed’ cost of ongoing innovation for new drugs.

Is this Big Pharma’s new way to change optics?

The intent for imbibing VBP, as expressed by the above pharma association, throws open the door for discussion of its core intent. Is the intention real, or another Big Pharma way of changing general optics on the sensitive issue of new drug pricing? This doubt creeps in from the findings of some important studies on this issue. One such is an interesting paper, titled “Pricing for Survival” from KPMG. The analysis highlighted very limited application of VBP concept, and also why it is not yet viable – despite the hype being created around it.

According to KPMG, “there were 25 drugs engaged in various types of VBP with payers in the fragmented United States market as of September 2017. The problem is, these models appear to be limited in applicability to disease states with more standardized protocols and dominated by drug therapies with single indications – notably osteoporosis, diabetes and hepatitis C.” To date, VBP models seem to be facing several constraints, such as it is appealing mostly to payers that are fully integrated with healthcare delivery i.e., closed-loop payer-provider health systems or integrated delivery networks.

“The takeaway is, when it comes to specialty and orphan drugs, outcomes-based pricing simply faces too many barriers at present” – the article elaborated. Be that as it may, let me now explore the relevance of VBP in India.

Any relevance of VBP in India?

VBP has been tried in a health care environment where payers and drug companies are two critical players for access to affordable medicines, as we see in the KPMG study. Under any value-based pricing agreements for pharmaceuticals, both payers and pharma companies agree to link payment for a medicine to the value achieved, rather than volume.

Whereas, in the Indian healthcare scenario, as we are experiencing today, payers are mostly individuals. Despite various well-publicized health schemes, expenditure on health, including drugs, remains by and large ‘out of pocket (OoP)’ – for a large Indian population. Hence, copying western framework for implementation VBP in India, would call for scores of ‘pharma – individual payer agreements.’ This would be a daunting task, if not impractical, to even try it out.

In this context, let me touch upon the Ayushman Bharat scheme that was launched by the Prime Minister on September 23, 2018, but just in one of the 29 states of India – Jharkhand. If, or as and when it will cover the entire country, the scheme is expected to bring 107.4 million families and more than 550 million people under health insurance coverage. However, the work seems to be still in progress.

There are three financing models for this scheme – insurance model, trust model and hybrid model – and the 19 states that have come on board for the scheme’s implementation in the country, have chosen a trust model, according to the Union Health Minister. The minister also reiterated: “Things are still unfolding. Only when the letters reach the beneficiaries will they understand and react.”

Nevertheless, the Union Health Minister himself, just like his counterparts in the previous governments, exhibited confidence that the country is “moving towards universal health cover with Ayushman Bharat scheme,” – as was the headline of the above media report.

Going by the past and current outcomes of several such government schemes in the country, and what the minister himself articulated on September 17, 2018, a large section of the Indian population still remains apprehensive on the fast pan-India rollout and overall success of this ambitious health scheme. Hence, at this stage, I reckon, it may not be relevant to discuss the application of VBP model on Ayushman Bharat project. I wrote about such apprehensions in this Blog on June 18, 2018.

Having said that, VBP still remains relevant when we look at the government’s intent captured in the National Pharmaceutical Pricing Policy (NPPP) 2012,’ as I shall discuss below.

VBP and the policy implementation gap:

For making the point clearer, let me keep the Ayushman Bharat scheme aside because of its associated uncertainties. Even in the current health care environment of high OoP expenditure on drugs, especially on high priced new drugs, if one tries to make use of the VBP model, it is very much possible.

This is because, the National Pharmaceutical Pricing Policy 2012, under point 4 (XV) on ‘Patented Drugs, categorically states: “There is a separate Committee constituted by the Government order dated February 01, 2007 for finalizing the pricing of Patented Drugs, and decisions on pricing of patented drugs would be taken based on the recommendations of the Committee.”

Curiously, even 6 years down the line, no meaningful decision has been taken on patented drug pricing in India by the successive governments. As I wrote in this Blog on December 12, 2016, Price Negotiation For Patented Drugs: Still A Policy Paralysis.

Parliamentary Standing Committee intervenes:

Six years after the constitution of the committee by the Department of Pharmaceutical (DoP), the long-awaited report was eventually submitted with a vague formula for pricing patented drugs in India. Intriguingly,the issue remained as such, until the Parliamentary Standing Committee’s August 2016 report was placed before the parliament. It strongly criticized the DoP’s efforts to recommend measures in regulating prices of life-saving patented drugs, despite government assurances for the same.

On September 23, 2016, media reported: “Upbraided by the parliamentary standing committee for its gross negligence and lackadaisical attitude, the department of pharmaceuticals has set about seeking suggestions from different ministries on price regulation of patented drugs.”

According to reports, a new inter-ministerial committee was formed thereafter, under the chairmanship of one of the Joint Secretaries of the DoP to suggest a new mechanism to fix prices of patented drugs in the country. The other members of the committee are Joint Secretary – Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion (DIPP); Joint Secretary – Ministry of Health and Family Welfare; and Member Secretary – National Pharmaceutical Pricing Authority (NPPA). But, the saga continues – at the cost of patients’ health interest.

Conclusion:

As it appears, there still lies a clear opportunity for Indian drug pricing policy makers introduce VBP concept for patented drugs in the country. Following this model, the prices of new and innovative drugs under patents can be set in line with their real and demonstrated clinical and economic value to patients, over the available existing products. Health Technology Assessment (HTA), for example, could be an effective tool in this process.

Additionally, the VBP model could also minimize, if not eliminate the risk of patients paying a high a price for new drugs coming through incremental innovation, adding too little clinical and economic value over existing drugs. There may, of course, be some teething trouble or even important issues in arriving at consensus on value-metrics for VBP. But, this can be sorted out through meaningful engagement with concerned parties.

Strikingly, even after 6 years since the NPPP 2012 was announced, nothing tangible has been made known to stakeholders on the execution of ‘patented drug pricing policy’ in India. An avoidable policy execution gap continues, limiting access to affordable new medicines to a vast majority of the Indian population, even today.

By: Tapan J. Ray

The Hype of Digitalization in Pharma Marketing

Posted on August 13, 2018 by Tapan Ray

Having access to the fountain of knowledge residing in the cyberspace, fueled by word of mouth information and aided by social media, patients’ behavior is fast changing globally. Its degree may vary. But the change is real. The good news is – in a digital world of today, people are talking about ‘digitalization’ to rejuvenate per dollar productivity even in the pharma business, while navigating through a strong environmental headwind.

But, the bad news seems to be, that many pharma players, especially in India, can’t possibly quite fathom, just yet, the profound impact of the changing customer profile. With the hype of ‘digital marketing’ and associated cacophony, most of them seem to be focusing on automation of various processes with digital tools, rather than a customer-centric pan-organization digitalization of business. In this article, I shall dwell on the relevance of such intervention in the pharma marketing model, including the processes, before it’s too late for an organization.

The reality – profile of pharma consumers is changing:

It is well documented today that the profile of pharma consumers is changing. There are several studies in this area. For example, the McKenzie paper of November 2014, titled “A digital prescription for pharma companies,” penned some important observations in this regard, as follows:

Consumers in the healthcare sector are becoming more informed, empowered, and demanding.

The vast majority of connected patients using an array of digital tools, to take control of their health and the health care services they access and buy.

Over 70 percent of patients who are online in the United States use the Internet to find healthcare information, and around 40 percent of people who diagnosed their condition through online research had it confirmed by a physician.

Patients equip themselves with information about product safety, efficacy, cost comparison, quality indicators from websites and online communities.

The more healthcare data become digitally accessible, the more patients will use it to weigh—and potentially reject—expensive health care treatments, as is particularly true in the United States.

These patients are demanding more information, so they can apply the same cost-benefit analysis and research techniques they use to purchase cars or phones when they purchase health care.

They are also making more informed, rational choices about where they put their money.

If pharma companies do not join the digital dialogue and influence the conversation, they will lose an opportunity to shape it, and they may be put on the defensive trying to refute the statements made by those that do take part.

In this evolving scenario, the expectations of pharma customers even in India, are also changing. It may not be as fast as in the United States, but certainly can’t be ignored in any way, for long term business success. Thus, I reckon, it would be futile to keep the basic process of business as tradition-bound as it has always been, of course, with some interesting tweaking here or there.

When everybody talks about digital intervention, what it is really?

To effect this desired change, all concerned are now talking about ‘digitalization’. It has already become a buzz word and is often considered as a ‘magic wand’ by many enthusiasts. There is nothing wrong in this hype, provided this process is properly understood. I tried to explain it in my article, published in this Blog on January 2018. Are we missing wood for the tree? Let me start with the current ‘digitalization’ focus of pharma marketing in this area, particularly in India – as I see it.

Where’s the current focus on ‘digitalization’ in pharma marketing?

Generally, the pharma marketing focus broadly covers two different categories:

A. Push marketing

B. Pull marketing

A. Push marketing:

In my view, ‘push marketing’ involves targeting physicians through Medical Representatives and other means, including several contentious ones. These ensure that the doctors “push” the identified pharma brands of the company while writing prescriptions for patients. Some experts call it an ‘inside out’ and brand focused strategy of the industry players to drive sales.

Many companies are taking major digital steps to introduce automation in this area, which are not transformative, but incremental and aimed at improving productivity. Such drive encompasses many areas of a pharma organization, including the field staff related functions. For example, replacing usage of paper-based items, such as detailing folders or reporting material, with algorithm-based digital tablet devices. These reforms help answer customer questions promptly, besides almost real-time entry of accurate doctors’ call related data into a remote computer server for continuous analysis and feedback.

Automation of such types may free enough time of the field staff for greater customer contacts in different ways, but may not be considered as digitalization of the organization. Moreover, these are not transformative in nature either, as the overall process of doing business remains the same.

Nonetheless, process automation and its re-engineering add significant, but incremental value to the business, as the organization continues to maintain similar ‘inside-out’ focus on brands. The re-engineered processes also become faster and more accurate to help improve productivity. However, patients’ knowledge-base, needs, demands, values and aspiration keep changing fast, which just process automation can’t leverage to excel in business.

B. Pull marketing:

Unlike ‘push marketing’, ‘pull marketing’ targeting pharma consumers who are increasingly becoming more informed and want to get involved in their treatment decision making process, including selection of a drug. The evolving trend suggests, to succeed in business, pharma players would require focusing more on patients, using various digital tools and platforms of engagement, in different ways.

To make this process meaningful, it is essential for a drug company to venture into mapping the patient’s journey from end-to-end for a specific disease or a set of diseases. This means capturing real-life data right from the time patients feel the need for a medical intervention, through the search for the right treatment, to effective disease management or cure, including follow-up, if any. Thus, mapping this arduous and complex odyssey would demand application of state-of-the-art digital tools.

Thereafter, equally sophisticated measures structured on digital platforms and formulated accordingly, require to be and implemented on the ground. It then becomes the ground-rock to transform the company’s focus – ‘through brands to patients’ to – ‘through patients to brands.’ Dovetailing this new marketing concept to a pan-organization initiative will call for new insight and wherewithal of the right kind.

When implemented by the right kind of people, this approach will encouragepatients to “pull” the demand of the selected brands, as they participate along with doctors in the drug selection part of the entire treatment process. The informed patients won’t hesitate posing questions to doctors – why ‘this’ drug is being prescribed and why not ‘that’ drug?’ The doctor would require responding with convincing answers in that situation. Some experts have termed this process as – an ‘outside in’ strategy.

Difference in impact – one ‘Incremental’, the other ‘transformative’:

It’s important to reiterate that the impact of digitalization for an ‘inside-out push strategy’, is generally incremental. Whereas, the same for ‘outside-in pull strategy’ is expected to be transformative in nature, not just in the business performance, but also the way pharma business is viewed and conducted as on date, especially in India.

Conclusion:

As I understand, process automation may be based on digital platforms and even with the application of Artificial Intelligence (AI) or robotics, the overall business process remains unchanged. It brings greater efficiency in the same business processes, improving employee productivity, and usually adds incremental success to brand performance.

Whereas, digitalization helps create a new way of achieving excellence – gaining a new insight for the business. This happens, first through generation, and then detail analysis of an enormous amount of relevant customer-centric data. Effective interpretation and use of the same, help transform the business – giving shape to new business processes for organizational distinction.

Simply speaking, automation improves the business efficiency with its key focus on ‘pushing brand prescription demand’, as much as possible. Whereas, digitalization aims at business transformation for a long-term organizational effectiveness. It creates a new purpose for business based on changing customer profile, across the organization. A sharp focus on delivering research-based and well-targeted customer values help ‘pulling brand prescription demand’, the decision of which is often jointly taken by the doctors and the patients or will happen that way even in India, sooner than later.

In this perspective, what we see in pharma marketing, generally in India, is automation of various types, of course, by using digital tools, platforms and even AI, in some cases. There isn’t anything wrong in that. But, digitization would call for much more. First, the core organizational focus to shift from being ‘brand-centric’ to ‘customer-centric’ for financial achievements, and then effectively delivering customer values through each ‘company-brand-customer interface’ and beyond that. This is essential for sustainable excellence of pharma players in the digital age.

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 Branded Generics Promise High Quality For Patients?

Posted on March 19, 2018 by Tapan Ray

Why most branded generic drugs don’t carry any stigma of quality, even when these are manufactured by small companies? The corollary to it is, why non-branded generics always carry a general stigma of inferior quality, even when produced by large Indian pharma companies?

While pondering over the answers to these questions, several other related facts also float at the top of mind, simultaneously, such as:

1. Just as many non-branded generics don’t go through the regular drug quality scrutiny of the regulators, branded generics are no different in this regard.

2. A large number of both branded and non-branded generics gets manufacturing approval by various State Drug Authorities.

3. The process of regulatory approval is exactly the same for both branded and non-branded generics. Even for branded generics regulatory approvals come only in the generic names and not with the brand names.

4. One can find hundreds of varieties of both branded and non-branded generics of the same molecules or of similar fixed dose combinations in the market.

5. Reports of substandard drugs of both non-branded and branded generics are also not significantly different.

6. Legal measures of reasonably stringent punishment in the country are no different between branded and non-branded generics.

This list is not exhaustive. Nevertheless, in this scenario, it is intriguing to fathom the reason of so much of contempt for non-branded generics within the industry, supported by a section of the media. This disgust gets invariably well-displayed as and when any serious discussion revolves around non-branded cheaper generic drug prescriptions in India.

Is it just a perception or based on solid facts?

This is a million-dollar question, but the optics is interesting. This also gets reflected in the recent media report on February 26, 2018. It writes, ‘The central government’s National Health Protection Scheme (NHPS) is going to put all of its focus on quality generic medicines, and not just the branded generic medicines, said Union Chemical and Fertilizer Minister Ananth Kumar while addressing a closed-door session with chief executives (CEOs) of pharmaceutical companies in Bengaluru on February 15.”

Curiously, in his statement the Minister also used the term ‘Quality’ only against non-branded generics and not against branded generics. Does it mean anything? If it does, is that just a perception or based on solid facts?

In this article, I shall try to assess why is this generally negative perception against cheaper non-branded generics gaining strength among many of us?

A general impression:

An often-repeated fascinating argument is, branding of a generic drug is important as it will ensure high product quality. This reasoning persists, regardless of the fact that the Drug Controller General of India (DCGI) often makes public announcements to the contrary, as happened even recently.

Risks of NSQ drugs don’t lie solely on non-branded generics:

According to the ‘National Drug Survey, 2014-16’, conducted in association with the National Institute of Biologicals, out of the 47,012 samples tested from the country, 13 samples (0.0245 percent) were ‘Spurious’ and 1,850 samples (3.16 percent) were found ‘Not of Standard Quality (NSQ)’.

The data on 1,850 NSQ samples showed that these were from 569 manufacturing units. Of these, 10 percent of manufacturing units were responsible for about 50 percent of NSQ samples. Further, one third of total NSQ samples were from 22 manufacturing units.

Further, quoting the survey carried out through the National Institute of Biologicals, a September 04, 2017 media report also articulated: ‘During its recent survey, the drug regulator found well-known drug manufacturers failing quality tests. In the survey, samples tested from top drug companies were found not to be of standard quality.’

The names of some of these large drug manufacturers in India, including the multinationals, along with their smaller counterparts, appeared in the Public Notice of July 21, 2017 of the Central Drugs Standard Control Organization (CDSCO) of India. Thus, the risks of NSQ medicines can’t possibly be attributed solely to the small time non-branded generic drug manufacturers. This public notice is expected to draw attention of many stakeholders.

More facts:

On April 22, 2017, the Central Drugs Standard Control Organization (CDSCO) reported that popular branded drugs like D-Cold Total, Cetrizine, Combiflam, Panza-40 tablets, Ibuprofen, and antibiotics with ciprofloxacin, ofloxacin, Amoxycillin, Ciprofloxacin have tested sub-standard. Before this, media reports of July 8, 2016 highlighted, “The DCGI has again found Sanofi’s popular painkiller drug, Combiflam, of sub-standard quality, in its latest test last month. It had found the same defect in the medicine in February and April, too.’

Conclusion:

Considering these facts, it is difficult to comprehend why branded generic drugs, irrespective of who manufacturers, will be of high quality perceptually – always. Conversely, non-branded generic drugs, even when manufactured by a reputed manufacturer, say for example – Cipla, are perceptually no good for patients, in terms of quality standard.

Nevertheless, the hard facts indicate, quality is a general issue both for branded and non-branded generic drugs in India, and not particularly for the later one.

This brings me back to where I started from: Do Branded Generics Promise High Quality for Patients? To find the right answer to this question, one should look at the scientific data on the same – sans any perception. Otherwise, it becomes ‘your view’ versus ‘my view’ sort of a mindless, though a highly passionate debate.

I shall refrain from being judgmental in this area. The readers may wish to ponder over it, seriously, and arrive at a well-considered inference on the very basis of this discourse – from the patients’ perspective.

By: Tapan J. Ray

How Relevant Is A Pharma Brand Name To Patients?

Posted on February 26, 2018 by Tapan Ray

Are brand names necessary for medicines? Well – its’s a contentious issue, at least, as on date. It becomes the subject of a raging debate when the same question is slightly modified to: – Are brand names necessary for prescription drugs?

The current reality is, almost all pharma companies believe, and have been following this practice. This has been happening for decades, regardless of the fact that unlike other branded non-pharma products, each and every drug also carries another specific name – the generic name. Which is why, questions are often raised, why can’t drugs be prescribed only in generic names by the doctors?

Before I proceed further, let me recapitulate the definition of a ‘brand’. One of the most comprehensive definitions of a brand is: Unique design, sign, symbol, words, or a combination of these that identifies a product and differentiates it from its competitors. It helps create a level of credibility, quality, and satisfaction in the consumer’s mind, by standing for certain benefits and value. And, the creative marketing practices followed in this process is termed as ‘branding’. Keeping this at the center, in this article, let me try to arrive at a relevant perspective on this subject.

The arguments in favor:

Votaries of pharma branding believe that a pharma brand helps establish an emotional connect with the consumers on various parameters, including quality, efficacy, safety and reliability. This is expected to establish a preferential advantage of a brand over its competitors. Quoting the ‘father of advertising’ David Ogilvy, some of these proponents relate the outcome of branding to offering ‘intangible sum of a product’s attributes’ to its consumers, and also prospective consumers.

Entrepreneur India puts across such favorable outcome of ‘branding’ very candidly, which is also applicable to branding medicines – both patented and generic ones. It says, “Consistent, strategic branding leads to a strong brand equity, which means the added value brought to your company’s products or services that allows you to charge more for your brand than what identical, unbranded products command.”

The general belief within the pharma industry is that, ‘branding’ facilitates doctors in choosing and prescribing medicines to patients, especially in those situations where the choices are many. Aficionados of pharma product branding argue, that to save time, doctors usually select those top of mind products, which they are familiar with and feel, can serve the purpose well. This belief prompts the necessity to go all out for ‘branding’ by the pharma companies, even when the process is an expensive one.

Where pharma ‘branding’ is necessary:

There are a few old publications of the 1980’s, which claim that studies based on human psychology have found that medicines with brand names can have a better perceived impact on the actual effectiveness of ‘Over the Counter (OTC)’ medications. One of the examples cited was of aspirin.

Be that as it may, the relevance of branding for OTC pharmaceutical products is undeniable, where a medicinal product is generally treated just as any other Fast-Moving Consumer Goods (FMCG) goods. Establishing an emotional connect of OTC brands with consumers is, therefore, considered an important process to create a preferential perceived advantage over its competitors.

There is no well-laid out legal or procedural pathway, as yet, for pharma OTC brands in India. No ‘Direct to Consumer (DTC) promotion is allowed in the country for Schedule H and Schedule X drugs – the only exceptions being Ayurvedic proprietary medicines and for homeopathy drugs. That said, the question continues to haunt, how relevant is branding for prescription drugs – now?

Relevance of ‘branding’ for prescription drugs:

The juggernaut of ‘branding prescription drugs’, riding mostly the wave of vested interests – of many hues and color, has been made to be perceived as necessary to ensure drug quality and safety for patients. It continues to move on, up until today, even for highly specialized prescription drugs. Nonetheless, some initiatives are visible from some Governments to gradually shift this contentious paradigm.

This move has been catalyzed by a blend of changing times with changing expectations of a large number of patients. They want to be an integral part in their treatment decisions, receive more personalized healthcare from both doctors and pharma companies. Patients, ultimately, want to feel confident that they’re receiving the best treatment – says a fresh study.

A number of other research papers also confirm that, a virtually static bar of patients’ expectations, in the disease treatment process – either for themselves or their near and dear ones, is slowly but surely gaining height, measurably. For better outcomes, patients have started expecting new types of services both from their doctors and the drug manufacturers. This process begins, even before a final decision is taken in the treatment process. As this paradigm shifts, pharma players would be significantly impacted – in several parameters.

Fast expanding digital empowerment options for all, across the world, is expediting this process further, including India. Placing oneself in the midst of it, one may ponder – how relevant is pharma branding today, as is being highlighted by many, since long.

In my view, a part of the answer to the above question arguably lies in a study titled, “Product Launch: The Patient Has Spoken”. The Key findings from the survey that covered 8,000 patients from three generations in the US, the UK, Germany and France, were published by ‘Accenture Life Sciences’ in January 2018. The research reveals how these patients evaluate and select new treatments in eight therapeutic areas (immune system, heart, lungs, brain, cancer, hormone/ metabolism and eye disease) across three generations, spanning across – Baby boomers, Generation X and Millennials.

Brands don’t matter to most patients…outcomes do:

69 percent of patients said, the benefits of the product are more important to them than the brand of the product. The four top factors influencing patients’ while making decisions about their healthcare are listed in the report as:

The doctor/ physician relationship: 66 percent
The patient’s ability to maintain their current lifestyle: 55 percent
Patients’ ease of access to health care they’ll need: 53 percent
Patients’ financial situation / ability to pay: 51 percent. When this is read with another finding where, 48 percent of patients believe that their doctors discuss the whole range of product options with them, a more interesting scenario emerges.

Further, lack of knowledge about the treatments available, as expressed by 42 percent of patients obviously indicate, pharma players’ intent to better inform patients by educating the doctors through brand promotion is not working. Interestingly, brand loyalty or popularity appeared relatively unimportant, ranking twelfth out of 14 influencing factors. Just 25 percent of patients characterized themselves as having a strong affinity with brands in a healthcare setting – the above report revealed.

Could there be an alternative approach?

An effective ‘branding’ exercise should lead to creating a ‘brand loyalty’ for any product. For pharma companies, doctors’ brand loyalty should lead to more number of its brand prescriptions. This expectation emanates from the idea that the prescription brand will represent something, such as quality, trust, assured relief, or may well be anything else. That means pharma product ‘branding’ is primarily aimed at the medical profession.

In an alternative approach to the current practice, an article titled, “From Managing Pills to Managing Brands”, published sometime back in the March-April 2000 issue of the Harvard Business Review (HBR), finds its great relevance, even today. It says, pharma companies can retain the loyalty of customers by building a franchise around specific therapeutic areas based on a focused approach to R&D. In other words, their corporate brand can replace individual drug brands. For example, a doctor looking for a treatment for – say asthma, would look for the latest GlaxoSmithKline medicines. Let me hasten to add, I used this example just to illustrate a point. This may appear as a long shot to some. Nonetheless, it would significantly reduce the cost of marketing, and subsequently the cost of a drug to patients. Incidentally, I also wrote about the relevance of ‘Corporate Branding’ in this Blog on June 15, 2015.

Conclusion:

With this fast-emerging backdrop, the Accenture Study raises an important issue to this effect. It wonders, whether the expenses incurred towards branding medicines, especially, during product launch be significantly reduced and be made more productive?

Illustrating the point, the report says, in 2016, the US pharmaceutical and healthcare industry alone spent US$ 15.2 billion in marketing. To earn a better business return, could a substantial part of this expenditure be reallocated to other programs that matter more to patients, such as access to patient service programs, and creating ‘Real-World Evidence (RWE)’ data that can document improved health outcomes, particularly those that matter to patients?

Well-crafted pharma branding and other associated initiatives, targeted predominantly to the medical profession, may make a doctor emotionally obligated to prescribe any company’s specific brands, for now. However, in the gradually firming-up ‘patient outcomes’-oriented environment, where patients want to participate in the treatment decision making process, will it remain so?

Dispassionately thinking, to most patients, a brand is as good or bad as the perceived value it delivers to them in the form of outcomes. Or, in other words, prescription pharma brands may not even matter to most of them, at all, but the outcomes will be. Hopefully, before it is too late pharma players would realize that, especially the well-informed patients are becoming co-decision makers in choosing the drug that a doctor will prescribe to them. If not, the current targeted process of pharma prescription drug branding, may lose its practical relevance, over a period of time.

By: Tapan J. Ray

Antimicrobial Resistance: A Recent Perspective

Posted on February 19, 2018 by Tapan Ray

On January 23, 2018, at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland – the first independent analysis of pharmaceutical industry efforts to tackle antibiotic drug resistance, was published by the Netherlands based Access to Medicine Foundation.

The issue of Antimicrobial Resistance (AMR) was brought under focus by the World Economic Forum (WEF) not for the first time at Davos in 2018. Its 2013 Annual Report on global risks, also underscored the gargantuan health hazard that AMR poses to mankind. It said, we live in a bacterial world where we will never be able to stay ahead of the mutation curve. A test of our resilience is how far the curve, we allow ourselves to fall behind. It’s indeed a profound statement!

In that sense, the AMF analysis is important. More so, when the global population is virtually at the threshold of facing a situation very similar to pre-antibiotic era, where even a common infection used to pose threat to a life. And now, a fast-developing AMR to many effective antibiotics or even super-antibiotics, are making them almost redundant in many serious conditions. Consequently, around 700,000 people die every year only due to antimicrobial resistance, the world over.

The World Health Organization (WHO) also reiterated its grave concern in this area by a news release on September 20, 2017. It cautioned, “Antimicrobial resistance is a global health emergency that will seriously jeopardize progress in modern medicine.” Against that backdrop, in this article, I shall dwell on some latest developments in this area, both globally and also in India.

Dire need for newer antibiotics – but dry R&D pipeline:

At the very outset, let me flag another critical area that is intimately related to this concern. An article titled, “Where Are the Antibiotics?”, published by the AARP Foundation adds more to this growing concern. It writes, in an era when many breakthrough innovative drugs are curing some of our most deadly afflictions, the quest for meeting the unmet medical needs, seems to have shifted away from development of critically needed breakthrough antibiotics to effectively address AMR, for various reasons.

The author further highlighted that between the time penicillin was discovered in 1928, and the 1970s – 270 antibiotics were approved – a robust arsenal of powerful drugs that kept almost all bacterial infections at bay. However, since then, research into new antibiotics has declined dramatically. Today, just five of the top 50 big drug companies are reportedly developing innovative antibiotics – the article reiterates. Nevertheless, some recent developments in this area can’t be ignored, either, which I shall touch upon in this discussion.

Global initiatives for a multi-pronged concerted action:

It is understandable that there are no magic bullets to address the fast-growing menace of AMR. It calls for a multi-pronged strategy with well-orchestrated concerted efforts for its effective implementation with military precision. Following are the three primary constituents who should lead from the front in the battle against AMR, as I reckon:

The world leaders
Each country, individually
Pharmaceutical industry, both global and local

The medical profession, including hospitals, nursing homes, the retail chemists and individual patients, also play a significant role to alleviate this problem, especially in India and other developing countries. But, I shall keep that as a subject for a separate discussion, altogether. Let me now touch-upon the first three constituents, one by one, as follows:

1. The world leaders’ initiative:

Realizing that failure to act on AMR will result in a global health and financial crisis, the world leaders met to address this growing menace. Accordingly, on September 21, 2016, the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) passed a declaration aimed at slowing the spread of antibiotic-resistant superbugs. At this meeting in New York City, the top UN leaders successfully urged all governments to sign a political declaration to tackle the problem of AMR, both globally and in their respective countries. The joint declaration requires each country to develop a 2-year plan to protect the potency of antibiotics for both livestock and humans. The progress of the initiative for each country at the end of those 2 years will be evaluated. However, in this article, I shall focus only on the agreed human-specific actions, which include the following:

Antibiotics should be prescribed only when they are absolutely necessary
A massive education campaign about antibiotic resistance.
Greater monitoring of superbugs to understand the scope and magnitude of the problem.
Safeguarding current antibiotic stockpile.

The leaders suggested that people should be encouraged to help prevent the crisis from turning into a death sentence for millions, with the steps, such as:

Get available vaccines to prevent illness
Stop asking doctors for antibiotics when they have the cold or flu, as antibiotics treat neither
To urge their political leaders to commit to action in combating antibiotic resistance.

2. Country-specific initiatives:

In September 2016, just a year after the UNGA high-level meeting on AMR, an update by the United Nations Foundation reported that 151 countries out of 195 WHO member states have responded. The overall response includes the following, among others:

85 percent of countries are developing or have developed National Action Plans (NAC).
52 percent of countries have a fully developed plan with ‘One Health’ approach that seeks to unify human and veterinary medicine, agriculture, and food providers against the progression of AMR by reducing agricultural antimicrobial use.
52 percent of Low and Middle-Income Countries (LMICs) have national-level measures in place on ‘Infection Prevention and Control (IPC)’ measures in human healthcare.

3. Pharmaceutical industry initiatives:

I shall cite only the latest commendable developments in this area, as I see it. On Jan. 21, 2016 a document titled the ‘Declaration on Combating Antimicrobial Resistance’, was launched, again, as part of the World Economic Forum at Davos, Switzerland.

For the first time, 85 pharmaceutical, biotechnology, generic-drug, and diagnostic companies agreed on a common set of principles for global action to support antibiotic conservation and the development of new drugs, diagnostics, and vaccines. The document, outlining several critical measures the government and industry must take to increase antibiotic effectiveness worldwide, was also drafted and signed by nine industry associations spanning 18 countries.

Global progress assessment of AMR initiatives in 2018:

This brings me back to where I started from, while analyzing what happened in this regard a year after the above declaration was signed. On January 23, 2018, at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland – the first independent analysis of pharmaceutical industry efforts to tackle drug resistance, was revealed by the AMF. It found companies are developing new drugs, as well as dismantling the incentives that encourage sales staff to oversell antibiotics, setting limits on the concentration of antibiotics in factory wastewater released into the environment, and tracking the spread of superbugs.

In the AMR Benchmark, GSK and Johnson & Johnson lead among the largest research-based pharmaceutical companies. A separate ranking of manufacturers of generic antibiotics features Mylan, Cipla, and Fresenius Kabi Global, in the leading positions. While Mylan leads the generic medicine manufacturers, Entasis, reportedly, leads the biotechnology group.

Twenty-eight antibiotics are in late stages of development:

The other key findings of the 2018 study include mention of 28 antibiotics that are in later stages of development, targeting pathogens deemed critical AMR priorities by the WHO, and/or US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. However, only two of these 28 candidates are supported by plans to ensure they can be both made accessible and used wisely if they reach the market. Be that as it may, the benchmark finds room for all companies to improve in this space, the report indicated.

Some major initiatives in India:

The good news is, ‘The National Policy for Containment of Antibacterial Resistance’, with similar objectives, was put in place in India by the Directorate General of Health Services, Ministry of Health & Family Welfare, way back in 2011. Further, on March 20, 2015, to strengthen the surveillance of antimicrobial resistance (AMR) in the country, Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR) had set up a National Antimicrobial Resistance Research and Surveillance Network (AMRRSN) to enable compilation of national data of AMR at different levels of health care.

Again, in February 2017, the Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR) has put a new ‘Treatment Guidelines for Antimicrobial Use in Common Syndromes’, to achieve the same objectives. Despite this, as many medical experts opine, a large number of General Practitioners (GP), including hospitals, nursing homes continued over-prescribing antibiotics. Alarmingly, considered as the last line of defense antibiotics by many doctors – Colistin and Carbapenem resistant infections have also been reported from several Indian hospitals. All this adds further fuel to the AMR fire.

Another matter of huge worry in India:

The February 04, 2018 article titled, ‘Threats to global antimicrobial resistance control Centrally approved and unapproved antibiotic formulations sold in India,’ published in the British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology, highlight serious hurdles for controlling antimicrobial resistance in India, which has had parliamentary investigations into the failures of the country’s drug regulatory system. The study was conducted by researchers from Queen Mary University in London, Newcastle University and Lakshya Society for Public Health Education and Research in Pune. Some of the key findings of the study are as follows:

Extensive use unapproved of fixed dose combination (FDC) antibiotics is contributing to the rising rate of AMR in India, which is already one of the highest in the world.

Out of the 118 of FDC antibiotics being sold in India, only 43 (36 percent) were approved by the CDSCO. These 118 antibiotic formulations are being sold in 3307 brand names and manufactured by 476 entities. Of these, 464 were Indian manufactures, and 12 were MNCs.

The authors recommend work on understanding why unapproved formulations are being prescribed by medical professionals.

Conclusion:

As the above AARP Foundation article highlights, like all living beings, bacteria constantly evolve to survive. While encountering a new antibiotic, they quickly find ways to evade it, and continue to live or exist. Some have even developed cell wall like virtually impregnable shields, as it were, keeping antibiotics out. Others pump antibiotics out when they get in. Several deadly bacteria have even devised ways to deactivate antibiotics.

The comments made in the article titled, ‘The Future of Antibiotics and Resistance,’ published by The New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) on January 24, 2013, is also worth noting. It says, the converging crises of increasing resistance and collapse of antibiotic research and development are the predictable results of policies and processes we have used to deal with infections for 75 years. If we want a long-term solution, the answer is not incremental tweaking of these policies and processes. Novel approaches, based on a reconceptualization of the nature of resistance, disease, and prevention, are needed.

The bottom line still remains, AMR is a humongous threat to the global population, not just in India. While its awareness is gradually increasing, much more painstaking work remains to be done by all, both individually and collectively, to contain this global health menace. It’s our responsibility to protect the well-being of our future generations.

By: Tapan J. Ray

With ‘Cutting Corners’ Going North, Pharma Reputation Dives South

Posted on January 15, 2018 by Tapan Ray

Just a few months ago, on October 24, 2017, ‘New Jersey Law Journal’ came out with an eye-catching headline – “Sanofi Set to Pay $ 61M Settlement in Antitrust Suit Over Vaccine Bundling.” The suit says: “Sanofi-Pasteur allegedly suppressed competition for its pediatric meningococcal vaccine, Menactra, by charging physicians and hospitals up to 35 percent more for its product, unless they agreed to buy Sanofi’s pediatric vaccines exclusively. Sanofi-Pasteur is the vaccines division of French drug manufacturer Sanofi.”

Nevertheless, a statement from the company said: “Despite Sanofi’s strong defenses, Sanofi recognizes that continued litigation is likely to be extraordinarily expensive and time-consuming and thus has agreed to enter into this Settlement Agreement to avoid the further expense, inconvenience, risk and distraction of burdensome and protracted litigation. Sanofi is finally putting to rest this case by obtaining complete dismissal of the action and a release by settlement class members of all released claims.”

When such incidences – of various scales and dimensions, continue being reported by both the global and local media, over a long period of time, one can fathom the potential of their cumulative impact on public and other stakeholders. Severely dented image and reputation of pharma, in general, before the eyes of so many, across the world, is a testimony to this phenomenon. Considering these as ‘cutting corners’ syndromes, I shall discuss in this article, how fast is pharma reputation diving South, with incidences of ‘cutting corners’ keep going North.

‘Cutting Corners’:

The Oxford dictionary defines ‘cutting corners’ as: ‘Doing something perfunctorily so as to save time or money’. Putting it in the context, I reckon, legally or ethically questionable actions with a deliberate intent of making quick profits, if not profiteering, can be termed as ‘cutting corners’ or business malpractices.

‘Cutting Corners’ going North:

This is no way a recent phenomenon. Gradually increasing number of new reports on pharma’s alleged malpractices are not uncommon, either. On the contrary, these keep coming rather too frequently – baffling many industry watchers and its well-wishers, for different reasons.

The details of 20 largest settlements in this area reached between the United States Department of Justice and various pharmaceutical companies from 1991 to 2012, as available from Wikipedia, provide a glimpse to its magnitude and dimension. The settlement amount reportedly includes both the civil (False Claims Act) settlement and criminal fine. Glaxo’s US$ 3 billion settlement is apparently one of the largest civil, False Claims Act settlement on the record, and Pfizer’s US$ 2.3 billion settlement includes a record-breaking US$ 1.3 billion criminal fine. A federal court also recognized all off-label promotion as a violation of the False Claims Act, leading to a US$ 430 million settlement during that period, as this report highlights.

In one of my articles, titled ‘Big Pharma Receives Another Body Blow: Would Indian Slumber End Now?’, published in this blog on May 19, 2014, I quoted a few more examples from 2013 and 2014, as well. A few of these are as follows:

In March 2014, the antitrust regulator of Italy reportedly fined two Swiss drug majors, Novartis and Roche 182.5 million euros (U$ 251 million) for allegedly blocking distribution of Roche’s Avastin cancer drug in favor of a more expensive drug Lucentis that the two companies market jointly for an eye disorder.

Just before this, in the same month of March 2014, it was reported that a German court had fined 28 million euro (US$ 39 million) to the French pharma major Sanofi and convicted two of its former employees on bribery charges.

In May 2013, Sanofi was reportedly fined US$ 52.8 Million by the French competition regulator for trying to limit sales of generic versions of the company’s Plavix.

Pharma reputation dives South:

That pharma reputation is diving south, is well captured in the ‘Business and Industry Sector Ratings’ by Gallup, dated August 2-7, 2017. According to this public rating, the top 5 and bottom 5 industries came up as follows:

Top 5:

Industry	Total Positive %	Neutral %	Total Negative %	*Net positive or negative %
Computer	75	15	8	+67
Restaurant	72	21	7	+65
Farming and agriculture	70	17	12	+58
Grocery	60	23	17	+43
Internet	59	21	18	+41

The bottom 5, including the federal government:

Industry	Total Positive %	Neutral %	Total Negative %	*Net positive or negative %
Airline	41	20	35	+6
Oil and gas	38	21	40	-2
Healthcare	38	18	45	-7
Pharmaceutical	33	16	50	-17
Federal Govt.	29	19	52	-23

*Net Positive is % Positive minus % negative (in percentage points)

Image rejuvenation campaign not yielding results:

Arguably, the richest and the most powerful pharma industry lobby group in the largest pharmaceutical market of the world, is incurring a mind-boggling sum of expenditure to mend the severely dented collective reputation and image of its members.

Vindicating this point, a January 18, 2017 media report articulated that a major pharma industry lobby group – PhRMA, is gearing up for a new image building campaign by spending in the “tens of millions” each year to drum up support for the reputationally challenged pharma industry. Such initiatives by PhRMA, as I understand, are not totally new, but rather ongoing. Be that as it may, as the Gallup survey confirms, pharma reputation keeps diving South, unabated.

Mending pharma’s reputation surfaces as one of the top concerns of the pharma industry. It, therefore, demands commensurate priority in working out a meaningful strategic plan, and its effective implementation on the ground, collectively. More so, when the POTUS – Donald Trump, has also emerged as a vocal pharma critic. He has already proclaimed that drug companies “are getting away with murder,” – as the above media report highlights.

Where is this campaign going off the mark?

On this subject, an article of September 5, 2017, published by Ars Technica – a technology news publication aptly epitomized, what is happening today with these campaigns, against what should have happened, instead. The column carries a headline ‘Big Pharma hopes research spending – not reasonable pricing – will improve image’.

The columnist wrote: “To scrub down their filthy reputations, drug makers could try lowering prices, a public mea culpa, or pledging to make pricing and marketing more responsible and transparent. But they seem to have taken a different strategy.” On this score, a relevant example, out of several others, was of Biogen introducing a drug in 2016, for a rare spine disorder and priced it at an eye-popping US$ 750,000 for the first years’ worth of treatment.

In pharma image revamp campaign, the focus on R&D spending or drug innovation, including blatant self-serving demands, such as strictest product patent and data exclusivity provisions, is rather overwhelming. It is understandable that all this fits in well with various pharma lobby group’s mission and mandate, but is unlikely to deliver what consumers would consider good behavior on the part of drug companies.

Is Indian pharma out of this loop?

The answer to this question is an emphatic – ‘No’. Alleged ‘dubious product quality’ related ongoing saga, is known today by all concerned. This had often culminated into US-FDA import bans of many drugs, manufactured by several Indian drug manufacturers – starting from the very top. Nonetheless, that’s not ‘the all’ or ‘end all’ in the ballgame of ‘cutting corners’ in India, as I explained above.

On September 26, 2017, a media report flashed: ‘The Income Tax (IT) investigation wing claims to have unearthed a nexus between a leading pharmaceutical company and doctors, and the evidence showing payments running into Crores to the latter for prescribing the company’s medicines.’

Close on the heels of ‘compromised drug quality standard’, such malpractices come as a double whammy for patients. But, the saga continues. In my article, titled ‘Healthcare in India And Hierarchy of Needs’, published in this blog on November 06, 2017, I mentioned about the October 31, 2017 public notice of the State Attorney General (AG) of Connecticut. The notice cited several instances of alleged drug price fixing in the United States. Interestingly, this lawsuit includes name of several large Indian companies, such as Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories, Emcure, Glenmark, Sun Pharma, and Zydus Pharma. The expanded complaint also names two individual defendants, one among them is the promoter, the chief executive officer and managing director of a large Indian pharma manufacturer.

Further, as I wrote before, the Maharashtra government’s recent announcement on enactment of a new law called the “Cut practices in Medical Services Act, 2017”, casts a darker shadow, not just on the doctors’ reputation, but also over the health care industry, in general, including pharma.

Today’s patients are more informed:

In today’s world, wider access to the Internet for a large number of global population has a profound implication in every sphere of life. News, discussions, opinions, comments and a plethora of other information on various industries, including pharma, are available from different credible websites, just as anything else.

Additionally, the social media, collectively, have made exchanges and interpretations of such information within various groups and communities, as fast as these could be. Just as many other different things, wrongdoings or malpractices, if any, of various industries, also get quickly captured and shared by the Netizen with ease and élan. These include incidences of ‘cutting corners’ by constituents of the pharma industry too.

Conclusion:

The Public Relationship campaigns of pharma lobby groups, with a hope to bridging the industry’s ‘trust deficit’, have been reported from the United States and other countries. However, any such campaign for the pharma industry in India hasn’t arrested my attention, as yet.

It’s beyond any reasonable doubt or debate that the pharma industry, in general, has saved and is still instrumental in saving more lives, in every nook and corner of the world. Ironically, the same industry, for its own deeds prompted mostly by the self-serving needs, has been suffering a massive collateral damage.

The industry’s long unblemished image and reputation have been severely tarnished, requiring rejuvenation with an inclusive approach. This may call for a mindset, at least, nearer to the same of George W. Merck – the legendary President and Chairman Merck & Co., Inc. He articulated a vision – “Medicine Is For The Patient, Not For The Profits”, and practiced it religiously. In today’s context, this may sound rather utopian in letters, but surely not in its spirit… be that as it may….

Pharma lobby groups hope to reverse the current trend by focusing only on R&D spending, drug innovation and strictest patent protection and data exclusivity ecosystem is apparently a non-starter. That ongoing multi-million-dollar pharma image revamp campaigns haven’t yet captured any tangible positive outcomes – not even in the United States, is possibly a testimony to this fact.

The status quo is expected to continue. More so, when ‘reasonable pricing’ of drugs is one of the top most demands of patients, patient groups and even many governments – and that’s exactly where the buck stops in pharma business.

In my view, pharma reputation restoration process isn’t merely a one-sided communication issue, as it appears today. A strategic blue print of this critical industry need, deserves to be drawn on a much broader canvass with a patient-serving mindset, instead of just a self-serving one. Otherwise, with incidences of ‘cutting corners’ going North, pharma reputation will keep diving South… till it finds its very bottom.

By: Tapan J. Ray

A Disruptive Innovation to Fight and Cure Intractable Diseases

Posted on October 30, 2017 by Tapan Ray

Several important facets of health care often arrest general attention. These are also widely discussed, analyzed and argued vehemently – with each person or group trying to justify one’s own point of view. Among these, following 6 critical areas, broadly dominate the deliberations:

Incredible advancement in the medical science driving health care,
Infrastructure, facilitators and providers of health care,
‘Wolves of health care in sheep’s clothing’, as described by many
Large populations facing inadequate availability and access to health care,
The need for Universal Health Care (UHC)
Public investments, policies and regulations governing health care.

In this article, I shall focus only on the first area – incredible recent advancement in the medical science driving health care, especially the very recent developments on a disruptive innovation called ‘Gene Therapy’.

Gene Therapy:

As some would know, one of the latest developments in the pharma world, relates to marketing approval in the United States and Europe of ‘Gene Therapy’ – a disruptive innovation in the medical science.

This technique of treatment using genes to manage, cure or prevent many intractable diseases are fast gaining ground globally, including India – at a slower pace, though. As I said, in America, the first gene therapy has already obtained the approval of the US-FDA in August 2017, closely followed by the second in October 2017, with the third waiting in the wings. In the European Union (EU), the first gene therapy was approved in 2012, but faced some commercial issues that I shall discuss later in this article.

During approval of the first gene therapy in the United States (US), the FDA Commissioner Scott Gottlieb reportedly said, this new frontier in medical innovation has the ability to reprogram a patient’s own cells to attack a deadly disease, such as cancer, creating an inflection point to treat, and even cure many intractable illnesses.

According to an October 10, 2017 publication of the U.S. National Library of Medicine, gene therapy may allow doctors to treat a disorder by inserting a gene into a patient’s cells instead of using drugs or surgery. Extensive research is ongoing, adopting several approaches to this treatment, including:

Replacing a mutated gene that causes disease with a healthy copy of the gene.
Inactivating, or “knocking out,” a mutated gene that is functioning improperly.
Introducing a new gene into the body to help fight a disease.

Thus, gene therapy is fast emerging as a promising treatment for a number of life-threatening diseases, including inherited disorders, some types of cancer, and certain tough to treat viral infections. That said, the technique being risky, is still under study to make it safer the patients. Currently, it is being tested only for diseases that have no other cures.

The first approval of gene therapy in the United States:

On August 30, 2017, US-FDA took a historic decision with its approval for the first ever gene therapy in America – meeting an unmet need in its true sense, and thus creating a major milestone in medical science. US-FDA approved this treatment for certain pediatric and young adult patients with a form of Acute Lymphoblastic Leukemia (ALL) – resistant to standard treatment, or which often relapses. The overall remission rate within three months of this treatment was found 83 percent in clinical trials.

This path-breaking therapy (tisagenlecleucel) is named Kymriah, and is made by Novartis. Nevertheless, it is worth noting that the treatment was developed by a group headed by Carl H. June at the University of Pennsylvania and licensed to Novartis.

A customized treatment:

The US-FDA approval letter to Novartis says, “Kymriah is a genetically modified autologous T-cell immunotherapy. Each dose of Kymriah is a customized treatment created using an individual patient’s own T-cells, a type of white blood cell known as a lymphocyte. The patient’s T-cells are collected and sent to a manufacturing center where they are genetically modified to include a new gene that contains a specific protein (a chimeric antigen receptor or CAR) that directs the T-cells to target and kill leukemia cells that have a specific antigen (CD19) on the surface. Once the cells are modified, they are infused back into the patient to kill the cancer cells.”

Nevertheless, Kymriah can cause life-threatening side effects, such as dangerous drops in blood pressure. This has prompted US-FDA to caution that hospitals and doctors should be specially trained and certified to administer this therapy, and require stocking of drugs to control severe reactions, if and when required.

The price tag is jaw dropping:

As reported by New York Times (NYT), Kymriah will be given to patients just once and must be made individually for each, costing US$ 475,000. Novartis reportedly has said, if a patient does not respond within the first month after treatment, there will be no charge. The company also said it would provide financial help to families who were uninsured or underinsured. This is indeed a commendable gesture.

The second USFDA approval for gene therapy:

Just about a week ago, on October 18, 2017, US-FDA approved Yescarta (axicabtagene ciloleucel) of Kite Pharma Inc. – a Gilead company. This is gene therapy is to treat adult patients with certain types of large B-cell lymphoma who have not responded to or who have relapsed after at least two other kinds of treatment.

Initially, 54 percent of patients on Yescarta reportedly had complete remissions with their tumors disappearing. Another 28 percent had partial remissions, where tumors shrank or appeared less active on scans. After six months, 80 percent of the 101 were still alive.

Just as Kymriah, Yescarta will also reportedly be introduced gradually, and be available only at centers where doctors and nurses have been trained in using it. This is, again, due to its serious side effects, which include high fevers, crashing blood pressure, lung congestion and neurological problems.

As reported, Kite Pharma hopes that Yescarta will eventually be approved for earlier stages of lymphoma, rather than being limited to patients with advanced disease who have been debilitated by multiple types of chemotherapy that did not work.

Yescarta will cost less than Kymriah at US$ 373,000 per patient. This is a single dose treatment to be infused into a vein, and must be manufactured individually for each patient. About 3,500 people a year only in the United States is estimated to be candidates for this therapy.

Yet another gene therapy is likely to get US-FDA approval soon:

Close on the heels of these two developments, yet another gene therapy is likely to get US-FDA approval in the coming months. On October 12, 2017, Spark Therapeutics – a gene therapy company in the United States, reportedly won unanimous support from a US-FDA advisory panel for its gene therapy – Luxturna (voretigene neparvovec), after the experts concluded that the benefits of this gene therapy outweighed its risks.

Luxturna – a one-shot treatment, has shown to reverse blindness by restoring vision in children with an inherited form of blindness, and shows potential to restore blood-clotting function to hemophiliacs, or even cure rare diseases outright. However, as the analysts estimate, the cost of Luxturna will be hefty, which could even be more than Kymriah of Novartis – at US$ 1 million per patient.

The first gene therapy in Europe was not commercially viable:

As stated above, in 2012, the first gene therapy – Amsterdam-based Uniqure’s Glybera (alipogene tiparvovec), was approved by the European Medicines Agency (EMA) for the EU market. The product was indicated for treatment of rare inherited disorder – lipoprotein lipase deficiency (LPLD).

However, with treatment cost of €1m+ per patient, Glybera was reportedly the most expensive therapy ever approved in Europe. Interestingly, in April 2017, Uniqure decided to terminate post-marketing studies required for prolongation of its existing EU conditional market approval, for its extremely limited usage, making the product commercially non-viable.

These four developments give me a sense of both – the fast pace of progress of gene therapy and also its possible commercial vulnerability, due to astronomically high prices coupled with a limited number of current usages linked to the specific disease types.

Gene therapy research in India:

According to the paper titled, “Gene therapy in India: a focus,” published by the Journal of Biosciences in June 2014 – ‘starting from 1998, the Indian government is playing a leading role in the advancement of gene therapy research in India by providing enormous financial support to scientists and clinicians through its various funding agencies like Department of Biotechnology (DBT), Department of Science and Technology (DST), Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR), etc.’

India is not far behind other Asian countries in the field of gene therapy. In Asia, China is the leader with 16 research laboratories, followed by Japan (13), India (10), South Korea (4), Israel (3) and Taiwan (3), the paper says.

The laboratories established in India to conduct gene therapy research are: Advanced Centre for Treatment, Research and Education for Cancer, Mumbai (1998), University of Delhi (2002), Saha Institute of Nuclear Physics, Kolkata (2004), Indian Institute of Science, Bengaluru (2005), Actis Biologics Private Limited (2005), Mumbai, Center for Stem Cell Research, Vellore (2010), Vellore Institute of Technology, Vellore (2012), Institute of Life Sciences, Bhubaneswar (2012), Narayana Nethralaya, Bengaluru (2013).

Conclusion:

As deliberated above, gene therapy reflects an incredible advancement in the medical science driving health care. This is primarily because, the disruptive innovation is aimed at treating genetic diseases at the molecular level by correcting the defective genes.

The fact, as captured in the worldwide gene therapy data table, that between 1989 and February 2016, over 2,300 gene therapy clinical trials have been conducted – 93 of which being in phase III while 3 in phase IV, further vindicates the rapid pace of evolution of this science.

As stated before, the critical process of this treatment reportedly involves ‘introduction of new genes into cells, to restore or add gene expression, for the purpose of treating disease. Most commonly a mutated gene is replaced with DNA encoding a functional copy. Alternatively, DNA encoding a therapeutic protein drug may be introduced.’ However, the exorbitant current cost of this novel treatment, for various reasons, severely limits its access to a vast majority of the global population, at least for now.

Be that as it may, the disruptive medical innovation culminating into gene therapy of date, is expected to open new vistas of opportunity to fight and cure several life-threatening intractable diseases. This game changing advancement in the medical science, no doubt, would help provide a new lease of life only to some, mostly due to its price barrier. Nevertheless, for many, it does carry a new hope for access to this life changing therapy – probably at some point of time in future. God willing!

By: Tapan J. Ray

PILMAN

A Tapan Ray Website

Tag Archives: Patients

Holistic Disease Treatment Solution: Critical For Pharma Success

Pharma Policy Execution Gap Limits Access To Affordable Medicines?

The Hype of Digitalization in Pharma Marketing

Why Branded Generics Promise High Quality For Patients?

How Relevant Is A Pharma Brand Name To Patients?

Antimicrobial Resistance: A Recent Perspective

A Disruptive Innovation to Fight and Cure Intractable Diseases