Tag Archives: pharmaceutical

A National Regulatory Standard is necessary for MRs of the Indian Pharmaceutical Industry

Posted on by
Reply

Medical Representatives (MR) form the bedrock of business success, especially for the pharmaceutical industry in India. The Job of MRs is tough and high voltage one, laced with moments of elation and sprinkles of frustration, while generating prescription demand for selected products in an assigned business territory. Though educational qualifications, relevant product and disease knowledge, professional conduct and ethical standards vary widely among them, they are usually friendly, mostly wearing a smile even while working in an environment of long and flexible working hours.

Currently, there is a huge challenge in India to strike a right balance between the level and quality of sales pitch generated for a brand by the MRs, at times even without being armed with required scientific knowledge and following professional conduct/ ethical standards, while doing their job.

It is critical for the MRs to understand scientific details of the products, its mode of action in a disease condition, precautions and side-effects in order to be fair to the job and be successful. As MRs are not just salesmen, they must always be properly educated in their respective fields and constantly hone their knowledge and skills to remain competitive.

A qualitative study:

Indian J Med Ethics, 2007 Apr-June; 4(2) reported a qualitative study to determine a wide range of pharmaceutical promotional practices by the MRs influencing prescription of medicines in Mumbai. The study highlighted:

“An unholy alliance: Manufacturers, chemists and doctors conspire to make profits at the expense of consumers and public health, even as they negotiate with each other on their respective shares of profits”.

The paper identified misleading information, incentives and unethical trade practices as methods to increase the prescription and sale of drugs. It reported, besides other points that MRs provide incomplete medical information to influence prescribing practices.

‘Code of Pharmaceutical Marketing Practices’ is necessary, but just not enough:

Gift-giving, ethical vs. unethical promotion, transparency and self-regulation appear to be the main issues in the pharmaceutical industry right across the globe. Owing to inadequate national legislation and the lack of universally accepted self-regulatory codes, the pharmaceutical industry in India has yet to tackle the problem of alleged “Unethical drug marketing practices”.

After a protracted debate on this subject by the pharmaceutical companies, in May 2011, the Department of Pharmaceuticals (DoP) came out with a draft ‘Uniform Code of Pharmaceutical Marketing Practices (UCMP)’ to address this issue squarely and effectively in India.

This decision of the government is the culmination of a series of events, covered widely by the various sections of the media, since 2004. Be that as it may, the UCMP, in my view, is just not enough to address the issue of alleged, “Unethical drug marketing practices” holistically.

A mandatory ‘accreditation/certification’ program for MRs is the need of the hour:

Countries like United Kingdom (UK) and Australia with much longer experience of dealing with pharmaceutical industry than India, have appropriate mechanisms, safeguards and legislation in place to deal with the pharmaceutical marketing practices. Even the pharmaceutical industry in the UK and Australia have controlling authorities with comprehensive standards in place to deal with proper education, professional conducts and ethics for the MRs. Similar mandatory ‘accreditation/certification’ program for MRs, in my view, is also necessary in India without any further delay.

India should learn from others to work out a robust process:

Even with such systems and regulations in place, both in the UK and Australia, some ethical issues still remain unresolved. In Australia the largest consumer organization highlights, “that it is a conflict of interest for the Code to be administered by the industry peak body.” and “it is also concerned that the sanctions available in the Code do little to prevent breaches”. United Kingdom is no exception in this regard.

Other markets are fast catching up:

Very recently in Turkey, Turkish Ministry of Health published a new pharmaceutical promotion regulation, which specifies for the first time a certification obligation for the MRs.

In Philippines, ‘MR Accreditation Program (MRAP)’ started about 8 to10 years ago. MRAP is administered by the Pharmaceutical and Healthcare Association of Philippines. The certifying examination is accredited by the Professional Regulation Commission (PRC) under its Board of Pharmacy of the Government of Philippines.

In Japan there is a certification program for the MR since 1997, which is administered by the MR Education and Accreditation Center of Japan, a public service corporation. One has to receive over 450 hours education and training in Japan to be qualified for the examination. Even after being qualified in the certification examination, at least 50 hours of continuing education is required every year to keep the certification updated that expires after 5 years.

In Germany, under German law and practice, MRs have either the status of “pharma advisors” (“Pharmaberater”) as specified in German Drugs Act or they have to pass the examination for certified MRs (“Pharmareferent”), which is accessible online.

“Pharma Advisors” have science background as a pharmacist, chemist, physician, veterinarian etc. whereas other MRs are required to obtain scientific and medicinal knowledge through suitable education and training program, which will lead to an examination for certification by the German authorities. All MRs are required to start the program within 6 months of employment in the industry and complete the five modules within 2 years.

In Canada ‘the Code of Ethical Practices’ requires the MRs to complete an accreditation course offered by the Council for Continuing Pharmaceutical Education within two years of commencing their employment.

In USA, there is no official MR certification program.

In Hungary, the MR certification program is administered officially by the Health Authority of the country.

In Indonesia, this is administered officially by the state/ governmental bodies or by the industry through an outside consulting organization, which issues certificates after successful completion of the examination.

In Argentina, MR Certification Program is required by the law of the land. In order to include the name in the ‘Registry of MR’, a qualifying degree as medical sales representative, issued by a tertiary educational institution and/or officially acknowledged training institutions, is essential.

In South Africa, they have certification only for marketing code training, which is administered by an independent Marketing Code Authority.

In Sweden, this course is administered by an external course organizer on behalf of LIF Sweden.

However, Swedish companies nowadays prefer to employ pharmacists, who do not need to take the examination.

A National regulatory standard for MRs is necessary in India:

India is now one of fastest growing emerging pharmaceutical markets of the world with 3rd global ranking in volume of production and 13th in value terms. Domestic turnover of the industry is around US$ 12.1 billion in June 2011 (IMS) representing just over 1% of the global pharmaceutical industry turnover of US$ 850 billion (IMS). Since 1970, Indian pharmaceutical Industry has rapidly evolved from almost a non-entity to meeting around 20% of the global requirements for high quality and low cost generic medicines.

Unfortunately, despite a fast evolving scenario, appropriate regulations in various areas of the industry in India have not been worked out, as yet, to derive the best mileage out of this scorching pace of growth of the industry. India still does not have a national code of conduct or regulatory standards applicable to MRs.

Only the clause 4 of ‘The Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisement) Act, 1954’ deals with misleading advertisements. It is about time to formulate not just a national code on pharmaceutical marketing practices, but also a mandatory accreditation program and qualifying criteria for the MRs for entire pharmaceutical industry in India, like many other countries of the world.

Central Drugs Standard Control Organization (CDSCO) of the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare of the Government of India in its website lists the “Laws Pertaining to Manufacture and Sale of Drugs in India”. However, it does not specify any regulation for the MRs nor does it recommend any standard of qualification and training for them, which is so critical for all concerned.

Conclusion:

In the above scenario, the moot question is without any comprehensive and formalized uniform national standards of educational qualification, knowledge, ethics and professional conduct being in place for the MRs, are they getting right uniform inputs, across the board, to appropriately interact with the medical profession in a manner that will benefit the patients and at the same remain within the boundary of professional conduct and medical ethics?

Thus, a National regulatory standard for MRs, I reckon, is absolutely necessary in India… sooner the better.

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.

Pharmaceutical R&D in India: Issues and Challenges

Posted on by
Reply

Research and Development (R&D) initiatives, though very important for most of the industries, is the life blood for the pharmaceutical sector, across the globe, to meet the unmet needs of the patients. Thus, very rightly, the Pharmaceutical Industry is considered as the ‘lifeline’ for any nation, in the battle against diseases of all types.

Drugs and Pharmaceuticals not only cure diseases and improve the quality of life of patients, but also help reducing the ‘burden of disease’ significantly. A study on five illnesses like AIDS, Cardiovascular, Cancer, Alzheimer’s and Rheumatoid-arthritis showed that drug research will save more than US$ 750 Billion in the treatment costs alone [1].

Similarly, treatment with drugs for schizophrenia can save more than US$ 70,000 per patient per year, due to avoidable hospitalization [2]. All these highlight the critical role that R&D could play in the healthcare system of any country.

R&D is not a threat to cheaper generic medicines:

More number of incoming patented medicines from the R&D labs will ensure faster growth of the generic pharmaceutical industry too, after the former will go off-patent. Even in the USA, which offers the highest number of innovative medicines across the globe, has a vibrant high growth generic pharmaceutical industry in place. The market penetration of cheaper generic drugs in the US is amongst the highest in the world and stands at more than half of all prescription medicines.

R&D process:

Over the years, pharmaceutical R&D process, though has evolved into a highly sophisticated and complex science, it still calls for enormous resources in terms of money, materials and skilled manpower, besides years of precious time.

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. Even in this environment, India’s investment in R&D still remains very modest by the international standard.

Global R&D investment and Asia-Pacific Region:

It has been reported that in the global pharmaceutical industry[3] 85 % of the medicines are produced by North America, Europe, Japan and Latin America and the developed nations hold 97% of the total patents worldwide.

Unlike the common perception, that China is attracting a significant part of the global investments towards R&D, latest data of MedTRACK revealed that only 15% of all drugs development is taking place in Asia-Pacific, despite the largest growth potential of the region in the world.

The key growth driver of any economy:

Innovation being one of the key growth drivers for the knowledge economy, creation of innovation friendly ecosystem in the country calls for a radical change in the mind set – from ‘process innovation’ to ‘product innovation’, from ‘replicating a molecule’ to ‘creating a molecule’.  A robust ecosystem for innovation is the wheel of progress of any nation.

It is encouraging to hear that the Government of India is working towards this direction in a more elaborate manner in its 12th Five Year Plan.

Indigenous capability for production of the country must give way to indigenous capability for innovation and discovery.  Laws and policies need to facilitate, reward, recognise, protect and encourage all those who are or could be a part of this critical process.

Striking a right balance between the cost of research and affordability of medicines:

While the common man expects newer and better medicines at affordable prices, the Pharmaceutical Industry has to battle with burgeoning R&D costs, high risks and increasingly long period of time to take a drug from the ‘mind to market’, mainly due to stringent regulatory requirements. It will indeed be a very proud moment for India, when a drug, especially, for treating Non-infectious Chronic Diseases (NCD) comes out of its home-grown R&D centers.

R&D is an arduous process:

The dynamics of Drug Discovery are shown below:

  • Despite patent life being 20 years, effective period of exclusivity for the discoverer is only 7.5 – 8.5 years.
Stages of Development No. of Years
Pre-clinical 3.5
Clinical 6.5
Regulatory 2.5 – 1.5
Total: 12.5 – 11.5
  •  Another report, as depicted in the chart below indicates the investment pattern in R&D by various countries in the developed markets of the world:

Where does the money go? (%)

US 36
Japan 19
Germany 10
France 9
UK 7
Switzerland 5
Sweden 3
Italy 3
Other 8

Where does the R&D investment go? (%)

Synthesis & Extraction 12
Screening & Testing 15
Toxicology & Safety 5
Dosage & Stability 9
Clinical Phase 1-3 26
Phase IV 6
Process Dev. & QA 10
IND & NDA 4
Bioavailability 2
Other 11

Looking at the long lead time before a new drug starts paying back and even if net profitability of 50% on sales are permitted, recovery of the entire R&D cost only from the Indian market would be virtually impossible.  Hence, if Indian R&D is to pay back, we need to have access to overseas markets.

Harmonization of regulatory standards is a must for containment of R&D costs.  Researchers in the country are currently following the ‘DRL’ or ‘Glenmark’ model of selling /out licensing the discovery for offshore development.

Strengths and weaknesses of India in Pharmaceutical R&D:

Following are the current strengths and weaknesses of the Pharmaceutical Industry of India from the R&D perspective:

Strengths:

  • Mature Industry with strong manufacturing base
  • Strengths in (innovative) process chemistry
  • Abundance of raw talent
  • Entrepreneurial spirit
  • Highly talented and skilled Indian scientists working abroad (great potential for networking)
  • Low cost of Manpower
  • Cost effective Manufacturing Facilities
  • Rich Biodiversity
  • Global Clinical Trials are now being contacted in India

Weaknesses:

  • Lack of funding and resources
  • Lack of a ready ‘talent pool’
  • Low profile of high quality work being carried out
  • Inadequate regulatory framework / infrastructure
  • Low investment in R & D
  • Missing Link between Research and Commercilisation

R&D Expenditure in India:

The following chart gives details of R&D spend of the major players of the Indian Pharmaceutical industry in 2009:

FY 2009                                  (USD=INR46)
Company Sales USD Mn. R&D USD Mn. As % of Sales
Ranbaxy Laboratories 1610 90.3 5.6
Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories 1572 83.6 5.3
Cipla 1152 51.2 4.4
Sun Pharmaceuticals 951 67.4 7.1
Lupin 847 48.4 5.7
Wockhardt 770 11.2 1.4
Piramal Healthcare 720 18.5 2.6
Cadila Healthcare 644 34.4 5.3
Aurobindo Pharma 557 24.5 4.4
Matrix Laboratories 500 46.6 9.3
Total 9324 476 5.1

(Source: Prowess: Business World, February 8, 2010)

Research Options for India:

Following are various research options available to India:

  • Basic Discovery Research:

Basic Discovery Research is capital intensive, costly and takes a long time for the return on investments.  This could be made possible only if significant (NIH-type) funding is available.

  • Genetic & Proteomic Research:

Genetic and Proteomic Research involves many of these following procedures:

- Decoding Human Genetic Code

- Identification of Genetic Markers

- Personalized cards or chips that will contain each person’s genetic structure

- Genetic Manipulation to alter a person’s susceptibility to a particular disease

- Elimination of therapies that will not work on certain genotypes

This is probably the most exciting field of Research today, where the Industry will be able to “leap-frog” given the right priority.  The International Center of Genetic Engineering and Biotechnology (ICGEB) is already a recognized center of excellence both within and outside the country.  Hence international grants and funding must be aggressively pursued.

Biotechnology & Biosimilar drugs could be yet another opportunity area for India to leapfrog.  Biotech derived products are among the fastest growing in the world. These products being more expensive, if discovered and developed locally, could be affordable to many and also highly profitable.  Immunological and DNA Vaccines could be the most cost-effective answer to healthcare problems in developing countries, including India and should, therefore, be given top priority.  Here again, collaborative and international grants will be a critical success factor, just as the success of Biotech Companies in the US was fuelled by private venture capital.

  • Process Research:

While focusing on Product Research, the Process Research should not be ignored, as India possesses considerable skill base for this type of research, even better than China.  Cost effective, more and more economical processes will always be necessary to make products more and more affordable to patients.

  • Natural Product Screening:

India’s rich bio-diversity should not go waste.  The amount of work being done today is negligible as compared to the availability of “raw material” from the natural source.  Indian bio-diversity should be captured and cataloged into a meaningful library to facilitate R&D in this area.

  • 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. In ‘Open Innovation’, the key component is the supportive pathway of its information network, which is driven by three key parameters of open development, open access and open source.

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

Other Areas:

  • Epidemiological Research: The Industry needs good reliable data on the burden of human diseases.  In the absence of this data, it will be difficult to allocate resources and predict outcomes of new therapies.
  • Clinical Research (including toxicological / animal testing):  This area needs to be made world class, sooner than the later, not only to bring down the cost of drug development, but also to ensure that the data thus produced are acceptable in other countries.  India has the potential to emerge as the most sought after global hub for pre-clinical and clinical drug development processes.

Success of Indian pharmaceutical companies in R&D:

Following are the details of success of some major domestic pharmaceutical players in their pharmaceutical R&D initiatives:

Company NCE Pipeline Key Therapeutic Area
Biocon Preclinical – 2Phase II – 2Phase III – 1 Inflammatory Diseases, Oncology, Diabetes
Piramala Healthcare 13 Compounds in Clinical Trials Oncology, Infectious Diseases, Diabetes, Inflammatory Diseases
Glenmark Discovery – 4Preclinical – 5Phase I – 1Phase II – 3 Metabolic Diseases, Infectious Diseases, Respiratory Diseases, Oncology
Suven Life Sciences Discovery – 2Preclinical – 4Phase I – 1 Neurodegenerative Diseases, Obesity, Diabetes, Inflammatory Diseases
Dr. Reddy’s Lab Preclinical – 1Phase II – 2Phase III – 1 Metabolic Disorders, Cardiac, Oncology
Advinus Preclinical – 3 Diabetes, Cardiac, Lipid Disorders
Worckhardt Preclinical – 10Phase II – 1 Infectious Diseases
Lupin Discovery – 2Preclinical – 1 Migraine, Psoriasis, T.B.

(Source: Financial Express, March 13, 2009)

Basic pre-requisites to encourage R&D in India:

  • Innovation friendly ecosystem
  • Adequate Funding
  • World class Infrastructure
  • Ready talent pool

The key elements of creating an ecosystem conducive to R&D:

  • Knowledge and learning need to be upgraded through the universities and specialist centres of learning within India.
  • Science and Technological achievement should be recognized and rewarded by the sanction of grants and the future funding should be linked to scientific achievement.
  • Indian scientists working abroad are now inclined to return to India or network with laboratories in India. This trend should be effectively leveraged.

Key role of Universities:

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

R&D funding:

Access to world markets is the greatest opportunity in the entire process of globalisation and the funds available abroad are a valuable source of “funding” to boost R&D in India. Inadequacy of funding is the greatest concern.

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

  1. Self-financing Research: This is based on (i) “CSIR Model” i.e. recover research costs through commercialization – collaboration with industries to fund research projects and (ii) “Dr Reddy’s Lab / Glenmark Model” i.e. recover research costs by selling lead compounds without taking through to development – wealth creation by the creation of Intellectual Capital.
  2. Overseas Funding:  By way of joint R&D ventures with overseas collaborators; seeking grants from overseas Health Foundations; earnings from Contract Research as also from Clinical Development and transfer of aborted leads (‘Killing Fields” of the West) and collaborative projects on Orphan Drugs.  Multinational companies could be encouraged to deploy resources, as this is where the real money is.
  3. Venture Capital & Equity Market :  This could be both via Private Venture Capital Funds and Special Government Institutions.  If regulations permit, foreign venture funds may also wish to participate. Venture Capital and Equity Financing will emerge as important sources of finance once track record is demonstrated and ‘early wins’ are recorded.
  4. Fiscal Support & Non-Fiscal Support: Will also be valuable in early stages of R&D, for which a variety of schemes are possible as follows:
  • Customs Duty Concessions: For Imports of specialised equipment, e.g. high throughput screening equipment, equipment for combinatorial chemistry, special analytical tools, specialised pilot plants, etc.
  • Income tax concessions (weighted tax deductibility): For both in-house and sponsored research programmes.
  • Soft loans: For financing approved R&D projects from Government financial institutions / banks.
  • Tax holidays: Deferral, loans on earnings from R&D.

Government funding: Government grants though available, tend to be small and typically targeted to government institutions or research bodies. There is very little government support for private sector R&D.

All these schemes need to be simple and hassle free and the eligibility criteria must be tight.

Infrastructure for R&D:

Scientific infrastructure needs of the country require to be urgently strengthened.  Many of our Research Institutions require immediate upgradation.  All research laboratories should be encouraged to be profit driven and plough back earning in modernization.

Quality of life (proximity to schooling, hospitals, recreation) and ambiance is important, particularly for scientists working abroad, who could be encouraged to return to India.

Setting up of world class Clinical Pharmacology Laboratories and Toxicology Centers must be considered.  All clinical trials carried out in India must conform to GCP standards.  At the same time, Indian registration procedures should be harmonized and simplified in order to minimize duplication of efforts and time loss.

Indian Patent infrastructure:

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

  • Enhancing patent literacy both in Legal and Scientific Communities, who must be taught how to read, write and file a probe.
  • Making available appropriate Search Engines to our scientists to facilitate worldwide patent searches.
  • Creating world class Indian Patent Offices where the examination skills and resources will need considerable enhancement.
  • Advisory Services on Patents to Indian scientists to help in filing patents in other countries.

Partnering for Drug Discovery:

Many Indian pharma companies have entered into international collaborative arrangements, including R&D for development of new drugs for disease areas like cancer, diabetes, malaria and nervous system disorders.

DRL has partnered with ClinTec International for clinical trials and co-development of its anti-cancer drug. ClinTec International will possess the marketing rights for European markets while the commercialization for the rest of the world and US markets would be retained by DRL. It has also tied up with Torrent Pharma for the exclusive marketing rights of its two hypertension drugs in Russia, where Torrent has a strong market hold.

GSK and Ranbaxy set up an early-stage partnership in drug research, under which GSK will provide the Indian firm with leads, Ranbaxy will conduct lead optimization and animal trials, and GSK will take the drug through human trials. GSK will have exclusive rights to sell any resulting product in developed-world markets, and the two firms will co-promote it in India.

Conclusion:

- It is essential to have balanced policies offering equitable advantage to all stakeholders, including patients.

- Globalization brings opportunities like, access to markets, which are far more profitable than ours.  Any policy of isolation or retaliation in an increasingly more global environment, could go against the general interest of the country.

- Acceptance by the Government of the benefits of privatization, market liberalization and rationalization of Government controls, will add speed to R&D initiatives.

- The trade policy is another important ingredient of public policy which can either reinforce or retard R&D efforts.

- Empirical evidence across the globe has demonstrated that a well balanced patent regime in the country encourages the inflow of technology, stimulates research and development, benefits both the national and the global pharmaceutical sectors and most importantly benefits the healthcare system.

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

References:

  1. The Process of New Drug Discovery and Development, Second Edition, Charles G. Smith and James T. O’Donnell, 2006, p. 422, published by Informa Healthcare.
  2. Goddamn the Pusher Man, Reason, April 2001
  3. Abhinav Agrawal, Kamal Dua, Vaibhav Garg, U.V.S. Sara and Akash Taneja, 27- Challenges and Opportunities for The Indian Pharma Industry, Health Administrator vol. xx number 1&2 : 109-113
  4. “Food & Drug Administration, Generic Drugs: Questions and Answers”. Food and Drug Administration, January 12, 2010.

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.

Open Innovation: Quo Vadis, Pharmaceutical R&D?

Posted on by
Reply

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’:

  1. 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.
  2. 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’. 
  3. 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.

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.

In the cacophony of FDI in the pharmaceutical sector of India

Posted on by
Reply

It is a widely accepted fact that Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) in the Pharmaceutical industry, just like in any other industry, is important for an emerging economy like India, mainly because of various important benefits that the country would derive out of such investments, like for example:

  • Job creation
  • World class infrastructure development
  • Transfer of modern technology
  • Help creating a talent pool through international training and development
  • Meeting unmet needs of patients through innovative medicines
  • Help imbibing the best practices of the world

Types of FDIs in the Pharmaceutical sector of India:

There are mainly three types of FDIs that we have witnessed so far in India:

  1. Green field investment: Like, setting up new manufacturing facility at Vizag by Eisai of Japan
  2. Brown field investment: Like, acquisition of Ranbaxy by Daiichi Sankyo of Japan, Piramal Healthcare by Abbott USA or Shantha Biotech by Sanofi Aventis of France.
  3. Joint venture: Like, Bayer Healthcare and Cadila Healthcare or Sun Pharma and MSD etc.

Besides these, as mentioned below, there have been some collaborative arrangements, as well, between global and Indian Pharmaceutical companies in the last five years like, GSK with Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories (DRL), Pfizer with Biocon etc.

Key drivers for FDI:

Following are the key factors, which attract FDI in the pharmaceutical sector, especially in an emerging market like India:

  1. Domestic market size, prospects for future market growth,
  2. Cheaper operating cost
  3. Cheaper input and English-speaking skilled manpower cost
  4. Regulatory environment
  5. Pricing environment
  6. Robust IT infrastructure
  7. Legal, IPR and financial framework

Relationship between FDI and Intellectual Property (IP) Environment:

Some recent media reports in various parts of the world including India had highlighted that China attracts more investment from foreign drug makers due to more robust Intellectual Property (IP) laws in that country.

US Trade Representatives (USTR) is one such agency which evaluates the adequacy and effectiveness of protection of Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) with US trading partners in various countries of the world through annual release of their ‘Special 301 Report’.

The report of US Trade Representatives (USTR 2011 Special 301) rates IPR regime of both China and India as unsatisfactory, so far as law enforcement, piracy prevention and transparency are concerned. The two main categories in the report are the ‘Priority Watch List’ and the ‘Watch List’. Both India and China fall under ‘Priority Watch List’ of this report.

An apparent contradiction:
The key question, in this context, that is being raised for quite some time now is, whether the decisions of foreign drug makers to invest in the emerging markets, like India and China are predominantly dependent on the IPR scenario in the respective countries.

If it is so, some would obviously like to know whether or not the ‘USTR 2011 Special 301 Report’ contradicts the above hypotheses.

Notwithstanding ‘USTR Special 301 Reports’ and being featured in their ‘Priority Watch List’ year after year, China continues to attract more and more FDI in pharmaceuticals over a long period of time. In any case, the FDI from USA in China was just around 12% of the total FDI that the country attracted in 2008. The same trend continues even today.

However, without going into the details of any report, relative robustness of IPR regime could at best be just one of the several key factors for a research based global pharmaceutical company to decide on FDI in any emerging market of the world.

Relatively speaking:

China is certainly attracting more FDI in the Pharma space than India. According to “The Survey of Foreign Investments in China’s Medicine Industry” of the Government of China, the FDI in the pharmaceutical industry of the country for a three year period commencing from 2006 to 2008 was around US $ 1772 million. The percentage of total investments made by the major countries is as follows:

Country wise pharmaceutical FDI % in China in 2008

 

Rank

Country

%

1.

Hong Kong

39.69

2.

United States

11.95

3.

British Virgin Island

11.64

4.

Bermuda

6.45

5.

Singapore

4.91

(Source: Invest in China 2009, Ministry of Commerce of the People’s Republic of China)

Whereas, as per Mr. Jyotiraditya Scindia, Minister of State, Ministry of Commerce and Industry, from the year 2006-07 up to September 2009, India attracted FDI of US $ 817.39 million, as follows:

FDI ( US$ million)

Sector

2006-07

2007-08

2008-09

2009-10 (upto Sept.09)

Cumulative

DRUGS & PHARMACEUTICALS

214.84

334.09

181.61

86.85

817.39

These figures would change significantly if FDI through M&A is taken into consideration.

In any case, this trend should not necessarily be exclusively correlated to the relative robustness of the IPR regime in India and China, notwithstanding the fact that 5.5% of all global pharmaceutical patent applications named one inventor or more located in India as against 8.4% located in China (Based on WIPO PCT applications)

Impact of FDI on the Indian Pharmaceutical Sector:

Some important FDI in India from 2006 to 2011

Year

Indian Companies

Multinational Companies

Value ($Mn)

 Type
2006
Matrix Labs Mylan

736

 Acquisition
Dabur Pharma Fresenius Kabi

219

 Acquisition
Ranbaxy Labs Daiichi Sankyo

4,600

 Acquisition
Shantha Biotech Sanofi-aventis

783

 Acquisition
2009
Orchid Chemicals Hospira

400

 Business Buyout
Aurobindo Pharma Pfizer

Not disclosed

 Generic Development and Supply
Dr Reddy’s  Labs GlaxoSmithKline

Not disclosed

 Generic Development and Supply
2010
Piramal Healthcare Abbott

3,720

 Business Buyout
Paras Pharma Reckitt Benkiser

726

 Acquisition
Claris Lifesciences Pfizer

Not disclosed

 Generic Development and Supply
Biocon Pfizer

350

 Insulin Marketing Deal
2011
Cadila Healthcare Bayer

Not disclosed

 Marketing Joint Venture
Sun Pharma Merck & Co.

Not disclosed

 Marketing, Manufacturing Joint Venture

There is no published data, as yet, to justify that the inflow of FDI in the pharmaceutical sector of India, including acquisition of large domestic pharmaceutical players like, Ranbaxy, Piramal Healthcare etc., had any adverse impact whatsoever on the country.

However, the reality is that such apprehension, especially the acquisition of some ‘Pharma Crown Jewels’ of India by the Multinational Companies (MNCs), though not fact-based, are apparently getting reverberated as a ‘sinister and sordid design’ even in the corridors of power ranging from the Ministry of Commerce, Cabinet Committee of Economic Affairs (CCEA), Planning Commission of India to Joint Parliamentary committee for Commerce.

It appears that the government is adopting a ‘wait and watch’ policy in this area for now, presumably because of the fact that the newly formed ‘Competition Commission of India (CCI)’ from now onwards will keep a careful vigil on such mega acquisitions.

Poor healthcare coverage could be a key barrier:

As indicated above, relative size and growth of the domestic pharmaceutical market together with healthcare coverage and delivery mechanism of a country could well be the most critical factor to influence foreign investment decision of the global pharmaceutical companies.

In global ranking, China is currently the seventh (India: 14) largest pharmaceutical market and is expected to be the fifth (India: 10) largest market by 2015 and the third largest by 2020. Chinese pharmaceutical market is expected to grow by over 15% per annum in the next five years, which is higher than India, even without considering the current base of both the countries.
Even in Health Insurance space, “India ranks 136th on penetration levels and lags behind China (106), Thailand (87), Russia (86), Brazil (85), Japan (61) and the US (9),” reported ‘Indo-Asian News Service (IANS)’ on July 21, 2009, in a paper titled, “India’s insurance penetration lower than world average”, jointly prepared by Crisil and Assocham.

Moreover, ‘out of pocket’ healthcare expenditure in India is one of the highest in the world at around 80% against 61% in China.

Country Attractiveness Index (CAI):

‘A.T. Kearney’ developed a CAI for clinical trials, for the use of, especially, the pharmaceutical industry executives to make more informed decision on offshore clinical trials. As per this study, the CAI of China is 6.10 against 5.58 of India. This could mainly be due to prevailing lackadaisical regulatory environment in India.
Other reasons to influence FDI:
I would reckon, all foreign direct investments (FDI) by the global pharmaceutical companies are driven by a combination of key business factors, as mentioned above, IPR ecosystem in the country is just one of them. This is vindicated by a recent report, which is as follows:

“Novartis has signed an agreement to build a pharmaceutical manufacturing facility in St. Petersburg, Russia. The plant is part of a $500 million Novartis investment in infrastructure, health care initiatives, and R&D in Russia over the next five years”.

The reason behind this investment was reported as follows:
“The announcement follows a pledge late last year by Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin of some $4 billion in federal funding for pharmaceutical industry development over the next 10 years. The government has set a goal for local industry to produce 90% of Russia’s “essential medicines”—about half of the country’s total pharmaceutical sales—by 2020.”
Other recent examples of FDI made by the global majors in other countries, which will support my above statement, are as follows:

1. Novo Nordisk: US $100 million in Russia 2. Sanofi-Aventis: a plant in Saudi Arabia. 3. Eisai: relocated global Aricept manufacturing facility to India for worldwide export.

Conclusion:

‘The Journal of International Business Studies’ (1999) 30, 1–24 based on the results from an econometric analysis of 136 laboratory investments reconfirms that relative market size, growth and the  strength of science base of a country would ultimately influence FDI in pharmaceutical research and development in an emerging market. The study also reiterated that these factors hold good for even Japanese, European and U.S. pharmaceutical companies.

Thus, to attract more FDI in the pharmaceutical sector and effectively compete with China, India should primarily focus in creating a vibrant and large domestic pharmaceutical product and services market reflecting sustainable high inclusive growth. A comprehensive ecosystem to provide healthcare to all, efficient regulatory mechanism, effective well balanced IP environment and a robust legal and financial framework will further hasten the process.

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.

In the quagmire of Pharmaceutical Pricing

Posted on by
Reply

Pricing of Pharmaceutical Products has now become one of the most complex and sensitive areas of the business, like never before. This is mainly because of the concern on the impact of medicine prices to access of medicines, especially, in the developing markets, like India and the cost containment pressure of the governments as well as the healthcare providers in the developed markets of the world.

It is widely believed that invaluable pharmaceuticals products, which play a central role in keeping the population of a nation healthy and disease free to the extent possible, should not be exploited in efforts to make unreasonable profits by anyone.

Pharmaceutical companies are often criticized in this area by those stakeholders who are concerned with the well-being of ailing poor and underprivileged population globally. The debate of access to medicines continues to revolve round pharmaceutical pricing in almost all countries of the world. India is no exception.

Current scenario in some major countries:

Early April, 2009, China, a nation of 1.3 billion people, unfolded a plan for a new healthcare reform process for the next decade to provide safe, effective, convenient and affordable healthcare services to all its citizens. A budgetary allocation of U.S $124 billion was made for the next three years for this purpose.

Similarly, 2010 is also be remembered as yet another significant year in recent times to improve access to medicines to a large number of population by encouraging usage of low cost generics. In this year:

- With contentious new healthcare reform, President Obama expanded access to Health Insurance to additional around 40 million Americans and encouraged prescription of low cost generic medicines.

- The Governments in UK and European Union, including the largest market in the EU – Germany, introduced stringent cost containment measures for pharmaceutical products.

India and Japan signed a Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement (CEPA) in February 2011 where Japan will gain access to low cost Indian generic medicines by extending similar facilities, like Japanese, for drug registration and release to the Indian pharmaceutical players.

How much to charge for a brand of medicine?

While there is no single or right way to arrive at the price of a medicine, how much the pharmaceutical manufacturers will charge for a pharmaceutical brand still remains an important yet complex and difficult task, both locally and globally.

Pharmaceutical pricing model is changing: Pharmaceutical pricing mechanism has undergone significant changes across the world. The old concept of pharmaceutical price being treated as almost given and usually determined only by the market forces with very less regulatory scrutiny is gradually but surely giving away to a new regime.

Currently in many cases, the prices of even patented medicines differ significantly from country to country across the globe, reflecting mainly the differences in healthcare systems and delivery along with income status and conditions.

Global pharmaceutical majors, like GSK and Merck (MSD) have already started following the differential pricing model, based primarily on the size of GDP and income status of the people of those countries. This strategy includes India.

If this trend continues, a win-win situation could be created, when unmet needs of a large number of patient groups could be met with innovative medicines, paving the way for the innovator companies to register a healthy, both top and bottom line, business growth in these emerging markets of the world to effectively fund their R&D projects, besides other areas of business. 

Four common pharmaceutical pricing models:

Following are the four common methods, which are usually followed to decide prices of medicines.

  • Cost-plus pricing (CPP):  This is a method of arriving at a selling price where a pre-determined percentage is added to the cost price to cover profit.
  • Target return pricing (TRP): This method of pricing estimates the desired return on investment to be achieved from the fixed and working capital investment and includes the same in the price of a product.
  • Reference Pricing:  In this method a product is sold at a price close to its main competing brand. The idea behind “reference pricing” is that certain drugs are interchangeable in terms of their therapeutic effectiveness within a disease group and reimbursement is based on the least expensive option. The concept started taking hold in Europe and has driven down pharmaceutical prices significantly in Germany.

Both the governments and patients save money in ‘Reference Pricing’ mechanism. However, all patients are free to choose a more expensive brand within the therapeutic group by paying the difference between the cost of those two drugs for reimbursement purpose.

  • Pharmacoeconomics based or Value-based pricing (PBP/VBP): Pharmacoeconomics, as we know, is a scientific model of setting price of a medicine commensurate to the economic value of the drug therapy.  Pharmacoeconomics principles, therefore, intend to maximize the value obtained from expenditures towards medicines through a structured evaluation of products costs and disease outcomes.

PBP/VBP basically offers the best value for money spent. It ‘is the costs and consequences of one treatment compared with the costs and consequences of alternative treatments’.

Let me hasten to add that some shortcomings in PBP/VBP system have already been highlighted by some experts and are being debated. The key question that is being asked now is how to quantify the value of saved life or relief of intense agony of patients while arriving at a price of a drug based on PBP/VBP model.

PBP/VBP concept is gaining ground: The concept of ‘evidence-based medicine’, is gaining ground in the developed markets of the world, prompting the pharmaceutical companies generate requisite ‘health outcome’ data using similar or equivalent products. Cost of incremental value that a product will deliver is of key significance. Some independent organizations like, the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) in the UK have taken a leading role in this area. PBP/VBP could help in ‘freeing-up’ resources to go to front-line healthcare: On November 11, 2010 ‘Pharma Times’ in a news item titled, “Government (UK) to consult on drug pricing in December” reported that newly-published business plan of the Department of Health for 2011-15 sets out the coalition government’s structural reform priorities for healthcare as follows:

  • Create a patient-led NHS
  • Promote better healthcare outcomes
  • Revolutionize NHS accountability
  • Promote public health
  • Reform social care

As per the Department of Health, UK, these reforms ‘will help to create a world-class NHS that saves thousands more lives every year by freeing up resources to go to the front line, giving professionals power and patients choice, and maintaining the principle that healthcare should be delivered to patients on the basis of need, not their ability to pay’. Global pharmaceutical companies using more ‘health outcomes’ data to set pricing strategies: Some global pharmaceutical companies have already taken pro-active measures on the subject. In early 2009, reported agreements between Sanofi-Aventis, Procter & Gamble and Health Alliance, as well as between Merck and Cigna, vindicate this point. These agreements signify a major shift in the approach of the global pharmaceutical industry to gather and use ‘health outcomes’ data.

In the Sanofi-Aventis/Procter & Gamble-Health Alliance agreement, concerned companies reported to have agreed to reimburse the expenses incurred by the Health Insurance companies for patients suffering from non-spinal bone fracture, while undergoing treatment with their drug Actonel.

In the Merck/Cigna agreement, Cigna will have the flexibility to price two diabetes drugs based on ‘health outcomes’ data. ‘Outcomes-based’ pricing strategies are expected to become the order of the day, in not too distant future, across the world.

The ground realities in India are very different: Medicines are very important and constitute a significant cost component of modern healthcare systems, globally. In India, overall healthcare system is fundamentally different from many other countries, including China. In many of those countries around 80% of expenses towards healthcare including medicines are reimbursed either by the Governments or through Health Insurance or similar other mechanisms.

However, in India the situation is just the reverse, about 80% of overall healthcare costs including medicines are private or out of pocket expenses incurred by the individuals/families. The corresponding figures for the same in China is 61%,  Sri Lanka 53%, Thailand 31% and Bhutan 29% (Source: TOI, May 8, 2011).

What’s happening in India now?

Currently in India CPP is being followed by the Government for all those pharmaceutical products which are under ‘Price Control’. However, for products which are outside price control, pharmaceutical manufacturers, by and large, follow the TRP model.

National Pharmaceutical Pricing Authority (NPPA) of the country still remains far behind in this respect and is almost groping in the dark to appropriately address this critical issue.

Many believe that NPPA has been taking arbitrary, non-pragmatic, non-transparent and populist pricing decisions since decades and has not been able to improve access to medicines significantly to a vast majority of population of the country even today. A pragmatic and modern approach in this area is the crying need of the time.

Conclusion:

PBP/VBP pricing models will be able to help yielding true benefits to the civil society only when its healthcare system and pharmaceutical coverage are integrated and made universally available to all, without any exception.

In India, before considering this approach, long overdue healthcare reform process should first be initiated to ensure universal healthcare coverage, together with a robust and comprehensive health insurance model for all strata of society, without further delay.

It is widely believed, without universal coverage of healthcare supported by clearly assigned, organized and well-integrated healthcare providers, the use of PBP/VBP models could prove to be counterproductive with further aggravation of inequities and inefficiencies in the healthcare system of the country.

By: Tapan J Ray

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

Could M&As in Pharma create significant stakeholder value?

Posted on by
Reply

At the very outset, I pay my homage to the departed soul of our industry colleague respected Amar Lulla, former joint managing director of Cipla, who passed away on Friday, April 22, 2011 after a prolonged battle against cancer.

As we know, “Merger and Acquisition (M&A)” is an inorganic growth tool of any business. In this model growth in business operations arise from value creation through mergers or takeovers of other companies, rather than from increase in the company’s own existing business activities.

On April 13, 2011, quoting a study released by Burrill & Co, a noted life sciences investment firm, ‘Fierce Pharma’ reported that “drug makers’ deal making over the past 10 years has utterly and completely failed to build value in the industry. Big Pharma has actually lost almost $1 trillion in value during the past decade.”

Big Pharmas lost value in the past decade through deal making:

Burrill argued: “The drug industry’s 17 most active buyers had a combined market value of $1.57 trillion at the end of 2000. By the end of 2010, that value had shrunk to $1.04 trillion–notwithstanding the $425 billion in acquisitions these companies made during the decade with a total loss of $955 billion.”

The report commented that global pharma majors could not make up non-delivery of innovative products through these acquisitions.

M&As triggered by in-market blockbuster products, were successful in the past:

It was observed that those M&As, which were triggered by in-market blockbuster products were successful in the past. Like for example:

Year M&A Product/Products
2000 Pfizer and Warner Lambert Lipitor
2006 Eli Lilly-ICOS Cialis
2008 Eli Lilly- ImClone Erbitux

However, when a company was acquired for products in development or R&D pipelines, it was observed that acquirer could not derive full benefits of their respective inorganic growth plans, as many of those projects did not fructify or could not be continued in the long run for various different reasons. I am not trying to go into those details in this article.

It is usually believed that healthcare companies with diversified interests along with pharmaceuticals and biotech business, like, diagnostic, devices and generic pharmaceuticals encountered much lesser growth pangs in the past. I reckon, it is for this reason, companies like, Abbott, J&J, Roche and Novartis registered overall better business performance than their pure pharmaceutical business counterparts like, Merck, Pfizer etc.

Only future will tell us whether high takeover prices, such as US$ 68 bn paid by Pfizer for Wyeth or US$ 46 bn of Roche for Genentech or US$ 41 bn of Merck for Schering-Plough, mainly to acquire the drug pipelines of the respective companies, can ultimately be justified or not. At this stage, it is indeed extremely difficult to quantify the transaction value of phase III drugs that Pfizer, Roche and Merck acquired with these mega deals.

However, about a couple of years ago ‘Forbes’ in its article titled, “Will Pfizer’s Merger Hurt Innovation?” published in January 26, 2009 commented as follows:

“Between 1998 and now, Pfizer has launched only one medicine with annual sales surpassing $1 billion, despite ploughing more than $60 billion into research and development. That drug, the pain med Lyrica, was already in development at Warner-Lambert when Pfizer bought it.” 

Other significant global M&A initiatives in 2010 were as follows:

Global Companies Value (US $ billion)
Sepracor by Dainippon Sumitomo 2.6
77% of Alcon (the eye care unit of Nestle) by Novartis 50
Millipore by Merck KGA 6
OSI Pharma by Astellas 4
King Pharma by Pfizer 3.6
BioVex by Amgen 1
Ratiopharm by Teva 5

In addition, work is in progress for some more M&A initiatives, like the hostile bid of US $ 20 billion of Sanofi Aventis for Genzyme in 2011. J&J’s offer of US $2.3 billion for vaccines of Crucell; Valeant’s hostile bid for Cephalon of US $ 5.7 billion, and J&J’s talk with Synthes for an acquisition with US $20 billion.

Emerging markets: the Eldorado:

At the same time, IMS Health reports that emerging markets will register a growth rate of 14% to 17% by 2014, significantly driven by generic pharmaceuticals, when the developed markets will be growing by 3% to 6% during this period. It is forecasted that the global pharmaceutical industry will record a turnover of US$1.1 trillion by this time.

Probably prompted by this overall market scenario, the global pharmaceutical majors are still trying to keep their heads above water through deal making and various collaborative initiatives. India, being one of the fastest growing global pharmaceutical markets, has also started experiencing this consolidation process.

Real consolidation process in India commenced in 2006: The consolidation process in India started gaining momentum from the year 2006 with the acquisition of Matrix Lab by Mylan, although 2009 witnessed the biggest merger in the Pharmaceutical Industry of India, thus far, in value terms, when the third largest drug maker of Japan, Daiichi Sankyo acquired 63.9% stake of Ranbaxy Laboratories of India for US $4.6 billion.
This was widely believed to be a win-win deal for both the companies with Daiichi Sankyo leveraging the cost arbitrage of Ranbaxy effectively, while Ranbaxy benefiting from the innovative products range of Daiichi Sankyo. This deal also established Daiichi Sankyo as one of the leading pharmaceutical generic manufacturers of the world, making the merged company a force to reckon with, in the space of both innovative and generic pharmaceuticals business.
Another mega acquisition soon followed:
In May 2010, the Pharma major in the US Abbott catapulted itself to number one position in the Indian Pharmaceutical Market (IPM) by acquiring the branded generics business of Piramal Healthcare with whopping US$3.72 billion. Abbott acquired Piramal Healthcare at around 9 times of its sales multiple against around 4 times of the same paid by Daiichi Sankyo.

According to Michael Warmuth, senior vice-president, established products of Abbott the sales turnover of Abbott in India, after this acquisition, will grow from its current around US$ 480 million to US$2.5 billion by the next decade. 

Was the valuation right for the acquired companies?
Abbott had valued formulations business of Piramal Healthcare at about eight times of sales, which is almost twice of what Japan’s Daiichi Sankyo paid for its US$4.6 billion purchase of a controlling stake in India’s Ranbaxy Laboratories in June 2008.

On the valuation, Warmuth of Abbott has reportedly commented “If you want the best companies you will pay a premium; however, we feel it was the right price.”

This is not surprising at all, as we all remember Daiichi Sankyo commented that the valuation was right for Ranbaxy, even when they wrote off US$3.5 billion on its acquisition.
In my opinion, considering the fact that not too many attractive acquisition targets are available within the domestic pharmaceutical industry, the valuation of any well performed Indian Pharmaceutical Company will continue to remain high, at least in the short to medium term… and why not, when the domestic pharmaceutical industry is growing so well, consistently?

M&As in India from 2006 to 2010:

Year

Indian Companies

Multinational Companies

Value ($Mn)

 Type
2006
Matrix Labs Mylan

736

 Acquisition
Dabur Pharma Fresenius Kabi

219

 Acquisition
Ranbaxy Labs Daiichi Sankyo

4,600

 Acquisition
Shantha Biotech Sanofi-aventis

783

 Acquisition
2009
Orchid Chemicals Hospira

400

 Business Buyout
2010
Piramal Healthcare Abbott

3,720

 Business Buyout
Paras Pharma Reckitt Benkiser

726

 Acquisition

Collaborative deals in India from 2009 to 2011:

Year

Multinational Companies

 Indian Companies
2009
GSK Dr. Reddy’s Lab
Pfizer Aurobindo Pharma
2010
AstraZeneca Torrent
Abbott Cadila Healthcare
Pfizer Strides Arcolab
AstraZeneca Aurobindo Pharma
Pfizer Biocon
2011
Bayer Cadila Healthcare
MSD Sun Pharma

The Key driver for acquisition of large Indian companies:
Such strategies highlight the intent of the global players to quickly grab sizeable share of the highly fragmented IPM – the second fastest growing and one of the most important emerging markets of the world.
If there is one most important key driver for such consolidation process in India, I reckon it will undoubtedly be the strategic intent of the global companies to dig their heel deep into the fast growing Indian branded generic market, contributing over 99% of the IPM. The same process is being witnessed in other fast growing emerging pharmaceutical markets, as well, the growth of which is basically driven by the branded generic business.
Important characteristics to target the branded generic companies:
To a global acquirer the following seem to be important requirements while shortlisting its target companies:
• Current sales and profit volume of the domestic branded generic business • Level of market penetration and the rate of growth of this business • Strength, spread and depth of the product portfolio • Quality of the sales and marketing teams • Valuation of the business
Faster speed of consolidation process could slow down the speed of evolution of the ‘generics pharmaceutical industry’ in India: Though quite unlikely, if the moderate valuation of large Indian companies starts attracting more and more global pharmaceutical majors, the speed of evolution of the ‘local generic pharmaceutical industry’ in the country could slow down, despite entry of newer smaller players in the market.

The global companies will then acquire a cutting edge on both sides of the pharmaceutical business, discovering and developing innovative patented medicines while maintaining a dominant presence in the fast growing emerging branded generics market across the world.
An alarm bell in the Indian Market for a different reason:
It has been reported that being alarmed by these developments, some industry insiders feel, “Lack of available funding is the main reason for the recent spurt in the sale of stakes in domestic companies”.
They have reportedly urged the Government to adequately fund the research and development (R&D) initiatives of the local Pharmaceutical Companies to ensure a safeguard against further acquisition of large Indian generic players by the global pharmaceutical majors. It is a fact that the domestic Indian companies do not have adequate capital to fund cost-intensive R&D projects in India even after having a significant cost arbitrage.
Will such consolidation process now gain momentum in India?
In my view, it will take some more time for acquisitions of large domestic Indian pharmaceutical companies by the Global Pharma majors to gain momentum in the country. In the near future, we shall rather witness more strategic collaborations between Indian and Global pharmaceutical companies, especially in the generic space, as indicated above.
The number of high profile M&As of Indian pharma companies will significantly increase, as I mentioned earlier, when the valuation of the domestic companies appears quite attractive to the global pharma majors. This could happen, as the local players face more cut-throat competition both in Indian and international markets, squeezing their profit margin.
It won’t be a cake walk either…not just yet:
Be that as it may, establishing dominance in the highly fragmented and fiercely competitive IPM will not be a ‘cakewalk’ for any company, not even for the global pharmaceutical majors. Many Indian branded generic players are good marketers too. Companies like, Cipla, Sun Pharma, Alkem, Mankind, Dr.Reddy’s Laboratories (DRL) have proven it time and again, over a period of so many years.
The acquisition of Ranbaxy by Daiichi Sankyo did not change anything in the competition front. Currently the market share of Abbott, post M&A, including Solvay and Piramal Healthcare, comes to just around 6.2% followed by Cipla at 5.5% (Source: AIOCD). This situation in no way signifies domination by Abbott in the IPM, far from creating any oligopolistic pharmaceutical market in India.
Thus the pharmaceutical market in the country will continue to remain fragmented with cut-throat competition from the existing and the newer tough minded, innovative and determined local branded generic players having cost arbitrage, cerebral power and untiring spirit of competitiveness with a burning desire to win.
Simultaneously, some of the domestic pharmaceutical companies are in the process of creating a sizeable Contract Research and Manufacturing Services (CRAMS) sector to service the global pharmaceutical market.
Conclusion:
In my view, it does not make long term business sense to pay such unusually high prices for the branded generics business of any Indian company. Besides the report of Burrill & Co., we also have with us examples of some of the Indian pharmaceutical acquisitions in the overseas market are not working satisfactorily as the regulatory requirements for the low cost generics drugs were changed in those countries.
Most glaring example is the acquisition of the German generic company Betapharm by DRL for US$ 570 million in 2006. It was reported that like Piramals, a significant part of the valuation of Betapharm was for its trained sales team. However, being caught in a regulatory quagmire, the ultimate outcome of this deal turned sour for DRL.
Could similar situation arise in India, as well? Who knows? What happens then to such expensive acquisitions, if for example, prescriptions by generic names are made mandatory by the Government within the country, despite intensive lobbying efforts?

Be that as it may, in India also, a study like, ‘Burrill Report” could be quite useful to ascertain whether or not the deal making of global and local drug majors in the country over a ten year period commencing from 2006 onwards, has succeeded to create desired stakeholder value.

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.

Dissapointing: No proposal of ‘Healthcare Reform’ in the Union Budget of India for 2011-12: China rolled it out in 2009.

Posted on by
Reply

January 15, 2011 issue of ‘The Lancet’ in an article titled, “Learning from others” states the following:

“Having universal coverage through a public commitment does have costs, including public costs. The proportion of national expenditure on health that is met by the government is 26% in India and 45% in China. Or, to look at a related contrast, while government expenditure on health care in India is only around 1·1% of its GDP, it is around 1·9% in China. One need not be a genius to see that if the government of a country is ready to spend more on health, it could expect better results in terms of the health of the people.”

While comparing India with China, I reckon, one should take into account of larger disease burden in India as compared to China and the cost that India pays due to slow progress of reform processes in a democratic framework with open and free society and the vibrant outspoken media in the country. Further, the healthcare reform processes in China started over a decade earlier than India, resulting in a significant difference in the healthcare infrastructure, healthcare delivery and the healthcare financing systems of both the countries, over a period of time.

Access to safe drinking water and sanitation:

Access to safe drinking water in India may be comparable to other emerging economies, but sanitation condition in India needs radical improvement. According to World Health Organization (WHO, 2009) the Access to potable water and improved sanitation in those countries are as follows:

Country Drinking Water  (% population) Sanitation                     (% population)
India 89 28
Brazil 91 77
China 88 65
Mexico 95 81
South Africa 93 59

Key issues in the Public Hospitals:

The ethical issues, which the patients face, especially, in the hospitals of India, I reckon, have not been reported for China by the Transparency International.

Transparency International India (2005) had reported the following seven key issues and irregularities experienced by the patients at the Government Hospitals in India:

  1. Medicines unavailable: 52%
  2. Doctors suggest a visit to their private clinic: 37%
  3. Doctors refer to private diagnostic centers: 31%
  4. Over-prescription of medicines: 24%
  5. Bribes demanded by staff: 20%
  6. Diagnostics tests done even when unnecessary: 18%
  7. Doctors are absent: 13%

All these continue to happen in India, with no respite to patients, despite ‘Hippocratic Oath’ being taken by the medical profession and the new MCI guidelines for the doctors being in place within the country. Moreover, a miniscule spend of 1% of the GDP by the Government of India towards public healthcare of the nation, is indeed a shame.

Healthcare Reform in China:

Early April, 2009, China, a country with 1.3 billion people, unfolded a plan for a new healthcare reform process for the next decade to provide safe, effective, convenient and affordable healthcare services to all its citizens. A budgetary allocation of U.S $124 billion has been made for the next three years towards this purpose.
China’s last healthcare reform was in 1997:
China in 1997 took its first reform measures to correct the earlier practice, when the medical services used to be considered just like any other commercial product. Very steep healthcare expenses made the medical services unaffordable and difficult to access to a vast majority of the Chinese population.
Out of pocket expenditure towards healthcare services also increased in China:
The data from the Ministry of Health of China indicates that out of pocket spending on healthcare services more than doubled from 21.2 percent in 1980 to 45.2 percent in 2007. At the same time the government funding towards healthcare services came down from 36.2 percent in 1980 to 20.3 percent in the same period.
Series of healthcare reforms were effectively implemented since then like, new cooperative medical scheme for the farmers and medical insurance for urban employees, to address the situation  prevailing at that time.
The core principle of the new phase of healthcare reform in China:
The core principle of the new phase of the healthcare reform process in China is to provide basic health care as a “public service” to all its citizens, where more government funding and supervision will assume a critical role.
The new healthcare reform process in China will, therefore, ensure basic systems of public health, medical services, medical insurance and medicine supply to the entire population of China. Priority will be given to the development of grass-root level hospitals in smaller cities and rural China and the general population will be encouraged to use these facilities for better access to affordable healthcare services. However, public, non-profit hospitals will continue to be one of the important providers of medical services in the country.
Medical Insurance and access to affordable medicines in China:
Chinese government plans to set up diversified medical insurance systems. The coverage of the basic medical insurance is expected to exceed 90 percent of the population by 2011. At the same time the new healthcare reform measures will ensure better health care delivery systems of affordable essential medicines at all public hospitals.
Careful monitoring of the healthcare system by the Chinese Government:
Chinese government will monitor the effective implementation and supervision of the healthcare operations of not only the medical institutions, but also the planning of health services development, and the basic medical insurance system, with greater care.
It has been reported that though the public hospitals will receive more government funding and be allowed to charge higher fees for quality treatment, however, they will not be allowed to make profits through expensive medicines and treatment, which is a common practice in China at present.
Drug price regulation and supervision in China:
The new healthcare reform measures will include regulation of prices of medicines and medical services, together with strengthening of supervision of health insurance providers, pharmaceutical companies and retailers.
As the saying goes, ‘proof of the pudding is in the eating’, the success of the new healthcare reform measures in China will depend on how effectively these are implemented across the country.

Besides Democracy, China has something to learn from India too:

The article, as mentioned above, from ‘The Lancet’ concludes by saying that unlike China, the real progress in India has come out of public discussion and demonstration within the democratic set-up in India. One such program is distribution of cooked mid-day meals to school children and selected interventions in child development in pre-school institutions. Such programs are currently not available in China for development of proper physical and mental health of, especially, the children of the marginalized section of the society

Conclusion:
There exists a sharp difference between India and China in the critical healthcare delivery system. The Chinese Government at least guarantees a basic level of public funded and managed healthcare services to all its citizens. Unfortunately, the situation is not quite the same in India, because of various reasons.
High economic growth in both the countries has also led to inequitable distribution of wealth, making many poor even poorer and the rich richer, further complicating the basic healthcare issues involving a vast majority of poor population of India.
To effectively address the critical issues related to health of its population, the Chinese Government has already announced a blueprint outlining its new healthcare reform measures for the next ten years. How will the Government of India respond to this situation for the new decade that has just begun?

It was very dissapointing to learn from the Union Budget speech of the Finance Minister of India for 2011-12 that the perspective of our Government on the importance of healthcare for the fellow citizens of India, still remains indifferent.

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.

Quick implementation of the undiluted ‘Central Drug Authority (CDA)’ Bill is essential for emerging India

Posted on by
Reply

Many industry experts after having evaluated the provisions of the original draft proposal for forming a Central Drugs Authority (CDA) in the country, commended and supported this laudable initiative of the Government. This Bill also known as, “The Drugs & Cosmetics (Amendment) Bill No.LVII of 2007 to amend the Drugs & Cosmetics Act, 1940” was introduced in the ‘Rajya Sabha’ on August 21 2007 and was thereafter referred to ‘The Parliamentary Standing Committee of Health and Family Welfare’ for review. The Committee also has submitted its recommendations to the Government since quite some time. However, the fact still remains that the proposed CDA Bill has not seen the light of the day, as yet.
Mashelkar Committee Recommendation:
It is high time to consider the recommendations of Dr. R.A. Mashelkar Committee on the subject and make amendments in Act to facilitate creation of a Central Drugs Authority (CDA) and introduce centralized licensing for manufacturing for sale, export and distribution of drugs.
Seven reasons for the dire need of the CDA in India:
I firmly believe that the formation of the ‘Central Drugs Authority (CDA)’ will provide the following benefits to the Industry and also the Government:
1. Achieving uniform interpretation of the provisions of the Drugs & Cosmetics Act & Rules
2. Standardizing procedures and systems for drug control across the country
3. Enabling coordinated nationwide action against spurious and substandard drugs
4. Upholding uniform quality standards with respect to exports to foreign countries from anywhere in India
5. Implementing uniform enforcement action for banned and irrational drugs
6. Creating a pan-Indian approach to drug control and administration
7. Evolving a single-window system for pharmaceutical manufacturing and research undertaken anywhere in the country.
Major countries have similar set up even within a federal system:
All major countries of the world have a strong federal drug control and administration system in place for the Pharmaceutical Industry. Like for example, despite strongly independent states within the federal structure of the U.S., the US – FDA is a unified and fully empowered federal government entity.
Similarly, coming together of many independent countries in Europe had led to the need for a pan-European drug control agency. This responsibility was vested on to the ‘European Medicine Agency (EMEA)’ with overriding pan-European authority and powers within the European Union (EU).
Thus, a single Central Authority that administers and regulates both pharmaceutical manufacturing and research is an absolute necessity in India’s bid to be a global hub for drug discovery.
The interim measure:
In my view, till CDA is formed, registration and marketing authorization for all new drugs and fixed-dose combinations should only be granted by Drugs Controller General of India (DCGI). I would emphasize, it is essential that a smooth transition takes place from the existing regulatory environment to the proposed CDA, carefully tightening all the loose knots in the process. All necessary infrastructures along with the required personnel must be in place, so that all permissions are granted to applicants within stipulated timeframe.
The watershed regulatory reform initiative should not get diluted:
The CDA Bill is widely considered as a watershed regulatory reform initiative in the pharmaceuticals space of India. This reform process, besides offering all other benefits as discussed above, would also be able  to update the legislation, considering significant advances the country has made since the last five decades, especially in the areas of clinical research, treatment methods, and sophisticated diagnostic and medical devices.
Conclusion:
It now appears, the Government could revive the CDA Bill and reintroduce it in the Parliament, sooner. It was to be introduced in its monsoon session. However, the plan did not fructify, as the Parliament could not function due to a logjam created by our politicians.
It is worth noting that the proposed centralize drug licensing mechanism was vehemently opposed by the state drug authorities and some section of the industry. The stated position of the opponents to the CDA Bill apprehends that the centralized structure will not be able to deliver, as the requisite infrastructure and manpower for the same are not in place, as yet.
This development bring out to the fore the lurking fear that the proposal to centralize drug licensing as a part of the proposed law, very unfortunately, may eventually get quite diluted because of vested interests.

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.