Tag Archives: Pharmaceuticals

To reap rich harvest from emerging global opportunities, Indian Biotech sector needs a ‘lifeline’ from the new Government… Now.

Posted on by
Reply
Growth of Biotech Industry in India took a dip in 2008. It registered a turnover of U.S $2.56 billionwith a growth of 20%, over the previous year. The industry was clocking an annual growth of over 30%, before this period.According to the Association of Biotech Led Enterprises (ABLE)this growth rate can still be considered as encouraging. Some industry experts endorsed this view by commenting that 10% drop in the growth rate was mainly due to exchange rate variations impacting exports earning.However, many other do not subscribe to this explanation. They argue that global financial meltdown has caused an all-round liquidity crisis and lower demand in the biotech sector, leading to sharp decline in income generation.

It appears that even 2009 will continue to be a challenging year for the Biotech sector. As is known to many, continuous innovation is the growth driver of this sector and the main fuel for this growth driver is continuous infusion of capital, the pipeline of which is drying up during the current period of global financial crisis.

ABLE Survey on Biotech sector:

A recent survey, conducted by ABLE, reported as follows for the biotech sector:

1. 56% of revenue (U.S$ 1.44 billion) was generated from exports

2. Bio-pharma accounted for about 70% of exports

3. Bio-services are about 26% of exports with an encouraging growth of 46% followed by bio-informatics with 31% growth rate

4. The top 20 Indian firms accounted for 48 % of the total biotech market

5. Last year investments in Biotech were reported to have grown by around 21%.

ABLE expects a decent growth of the bio-pharma segment over the next five years. Bio-services and bio-generic exports to the regulated markets are expected to be the key growth drivers during this period. However, the moot question is: will the current global financial crisis act as a dampener to such bullish expectations?

Market forecast for Biotech sector:

‘Bio-spectrum’, in one of its recent reports, highlighted that with the new biotech policy of the Government of India (GoI), the sector is expected to grow to U.S$ 13-$16 billion by 2015. Serum Institute of Pune is at the top of the league table with a turnover of Rs. 9.87 billion followed by Biocon and Panacea Biotech.

Some analysts feel that the Indian biotech sector has the potential to register a turnover of U.S$5 billion by 2010 and U.S$20 billion by 2020. This is mainly due to increasing global demand for more affordable medicines in general and biotech medicines in particular. Recent introduction of ‘The Promoting Innovation and Access to Life-Saving Medicine Act’ in the US House of Representatives vindicates this point.

It is envisaged that this bill will enable the US Food and Drug Administration (USFDA) to create regulatory pathways for marketing approval of ‘bio-similar’ drugs in the USA. Many Indian biotech companies, analysts feel, are preparing themselves to make full use of this golden opportunity as soon as it comes.

How is the ‘Global Financial Meltdown’ affecting the Biotech sector?

The impact of ‘Global Financial Meltdown’ is all pervasive in the Biotech sector, all over the world, India is no exception.

Because of global liquidity crunch, availability of capital to fund the growth of this sector has become scarce, leading to most of the growth plans, if not all, are being put on hold. Fear among the Indian Biotech companies of turning an easy prey for the predators in search of a good biotech portfolio, is looming large. It was recently reported in the media that GlaxoSmithKline and Sanofi-Aventis are interested to acquire a majority stake of Shantha Biotech of Hyderabad.

In abroad, we have witnessed such instances when Roche acquired Genentech, Astra Zeneca bought MedImmune, Eli Lilly acuired Imclone and Merck took over Serno.

Why is the impact of global ‘liquidity crunch’ more on the Biotech sector?

The impact on ‘liquidity crunch’ on the Biotech sector is more pronounced because all over the world this sector is dominated mainly by much smaller companies, engaged in the drug discovery and development research. Continuous flow of fund is of utmost importance not only to fund growth of these organizations, but for their survival, as well. Private equity funding is also dwindling up pretty fast.

GoI initiatives to encourage growth of Biotechnology sector:

Mr. Kapil Sibal outgoing Minister of Science and technology of the erswhile UPA government, not too long ago, announced the plan of the GoI to build 20 more biotech parks in India, in order to provide the required infrastructural facilities to this sector and promote high quality R&D initiatives related to biotechnology.

It is indeed encouraging to note that the Department of Biotechnology (DBT) has already signed a 10-year contract with the Welcome Trust towards developing human resources of high quality, for the sector.

Emerging outsourcing opportunities:

Despite such pessimistic scenario, Indian biotech sector is bullish on the business opportunities from various types of emerging outsourcing opportunities being offered by the global pharmaceutical companies, because of their business compulsions, particularly in Contract Research and Manufacturing services (CRAMS) space.

Zinnov management consulting recently reported that outsourcing opportunities of over U.S. $ 2.5 billion will come to the Indian Pharmaceutical Industry, including its Biotech sector by 2012. This will indeed help the domestic pharmaceutical companies in a big way, as many players are now finding the transition from manufacturing ‘copy cat’ generic drugs to devising new therapies, pretty difficult.

Conclusion:

To reap a rich harvest from of all these emerging global and local opportunities, the biotech sector of India now needs a ‘lifeline’ from the new Government. Ensuring easy availability of capital will be the ‘lifeline’, at this moment of global financial crisis.

In the battle against disease let the Biotech parks of India be seen as the ‘Armageddon’, as it were, global hub to cater to the needs of poor and needy – a symbol of scientific supremacy.

By Tapan 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.

‘Patent Pool’ – is GSK setting a new trend for the global pharmaceutical industry?

Posted on by
Reply

On February 13, 2009, The Guardian reported that Andrew Witty, CEO of GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) announced some significant changes to the way his company will operate in the developing countries of the world.

GSK, as Witty said, will:

• “Cut its prices for all drugs in the 50 least developed countries to no more than 25% of the levels in the UK and US – and less if possible – and make drugs more affordable in middle- income countries such as Brazil and India.

• Put any chemicals or processes over which it has intellectual property rights that are relevant to finding drugs for neglected diseases into a “patent pool”, so they can be explored by other researchers.

• Reinvest 20% of any profits it makes in the least developed countries in hospitals, clinics and staff.

• Invite scientists from other companies, NGOs or governments to join the hunt for tropical disease treatments at its dedicated institute at Tres Cantos, Spain.”

Quoting Andrew Witty, The Guardian reported, “his stance may not win him friends in other drug companies, but he is inviting them to join him in an attempt to make a significant difference to the health of people in poor countries”.

“We work like crazy to come up with the next great medicine, knowing that it’s likely to get used an awful lot in developed countries, but we could do something for developing countries. Are we working as hard on that? I want to be able to say yes we are, and that’s what this is all about – trying to make sure we are even-handed in terms of our efforts to find solutions not just for developed but for developing countries,” Witty envisioned.

“I think the shareholders understand this and it’s my job to make sure I can explain it. I think we can. I think it’s absolutely the kind of thing large global companies need to be demonstrating, that they’ve got a more balanced view of the world than short-term returns,” he expressed Knowing full well that his comments will be considered as quite radical within the global pharmaceutical Industry.

The unorthodox young CEO of GSK continued, “I think it’s the first time anybody’s really come out and said we’re prepared to start talking to people about pooling our patents to try to facilitate innovation in areas where, so far, there hasn’t been much progress.”

Definition of ‘Patent Pool’:

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

Thus one of the often repeated key benefits of the ‘Patent Pool’, as considered by its proponent, is that the system enables the use of innovation against payment of royalties, without the risk of patent infringement.

The rationale for ‘Patent Pool’ system:

Many experts in this area feel that the conventional patent system does not really work for the diseases of the poor, all over the world. Though the concept of ‘Patent Pool’ is quite new in the global pharmaceutical industry, this system is being very successfully and widely practised within the Information Technology (IT) industry. ‘Patent Pool’ system, if effectively used, can also help the global pharmaceutical companies to improve their access to many more developing countries of the world.

GSK appears to have kick started the process:

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

Key requirements for the ‘Patent Pool’:

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

Key issues with the ‘Patent Pool’ concept:

It has been reported, from a WHO conference held in April, 2006 ‘Innovation Strategy Today’ worked out that the start-up costs of a ‘Patent Pool’ for vaccines will be economically viable only if more than 25 participants holding relevant patents join the initiative.

Moreover, various types of litigations, related to patents, which we are currently witnessing within the global pharmaceutical industry, could also be impediment in getting more patents in the pool.

Conclusion:

The initiative to create a ‘Patent Pool’ system in the global pharmaceutical industry, especially for the diseases of the poor, as enunciated by the CEO of GSK, is indeed a path breaking one. Such initiatives are likely to have very positive contribution in solving the problem of access to affordable medicines, especially in the developing world.

In fact, the Council of Science and Industrial Research of the Government of India, lead by its Director General, Dr. Samir Brahmachari has already undertaken similar initiatives in the country where global experts including academia are actively participating.

Though ‘Patent Pool’ is still an untested model in the global pharmaceutical industry, the recent announcement of GSK towards this direction does appear to offer a realistic and practical approach to address the critical global issue of improving ‘access to affordable innovative modern medicines’ to a vast majority of population in the developing countries of the world.

By Tapan 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.

Key business strategies of global pharmaceutical industry are undergoing a radical change, while in India we are still thinking within the box. Who cares about the global clue?

Posted on by
Reply
One of the leading consulting companies, PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC) in its report of June 2007 titled “Pharma 2020: The vision –Which path will you take?” postulated that the business model followed by the global pharmaceutical companies is, “economically unsustainable and operationally incapable of acting quickly enough to produce the types of innovative treatments demanded by global markets”.
R&D is failing to deliver:Datamonitor highlighted that drugs worth U.S$ 140 billion will go off patent by 2016. Thus the value turnover that will be lost because of number of drugs going off-patent will be almost impossible to replace by this time. Many analysts have been expressing concerns about gradual but steady decline in pharmaceutical R&D productivity since quite some time. During this period, most of the research based companies could afford only a small increase in their R&D budget, while marketing and other overhead expenditures registered a significant increase.

Single global process of Drug Regulatory approval…is possible…but is it probable?

PwC in the same report touched upon another interesting possibility within the R&D space of the global pharmaceutical industry. It indicated that the research based pharmaceutical companies will gradually switch over from, “Classic model of drug development that ends in regulatory approval to ‘live licenses’ that allow for narrow product launches followed by gradually expanding approvals as drugs are continuously tested.”

Most interestingly, the report also forecasted that by 2020, the drug regulators across the world will work together under a collaborative framework to arrive at uniform and single global process of drug regulatory approval. If it materializes, the process will indeed be path breaking in every sense.

Global pharmaceutical market will register significant growth:

Following this trend, the report highlighted, that the global pharmaceutical sales will touch U.S$ 1.3 trillion by 2020, almost double of what it is today. High growth of emerging markets and the aging global population are expected to be the key growth drivers.

During this period E7 countries like, Brazil, Russia, India, China, Mexico, Turkey and Indonesia are expected to contribute around 20% of Global Pharmaceutical turnover. Keeping pace with the economic progress, the disease pattern of these countries are also changing, from infectious diseases to non-infectious chronic illnesses, like diabetes, hypertension, just as we now observe in the developed world.

Together with this change, many predict that ‘greenhouse effect’ arising out of global warming process will have significant impact on health of the global population, resulting in large scale re-emergence of diseases like malaria and cholera together with various types of respiratory disorders.

Radical change is envisaged in pharmaceuticals marketing:

In April 2009, PwC came out with another interesting report titled, “Pharma 2020: Challenging business models, which path will you take?” on the future of the global pharmaceutical industry.

As the time progresses global pharmaceutical companies will need to understand the shift in ‘perceived value’ that is taking place within patients, medical profession and the community as a whole towards healthcare delivery. Just an innovative medicine will no longer be able to satisfy their ‘value expectations’. Pharmaceutical companies will have to offer a ‘bundle of benefits’, combining the innovative products with related health services, for which the market will not hesitate to pay a reasonable premium.

Thus in future, global pharmaceutical companies will need to collaborate with disease management specialists for a “holistic offering” to address an ailment rather than just treatment of the disease with medicines. Such “value added and innovative” marketing strategies will differentiate business success from failure, in 2020.

In the recent report PwC advocates that to be successful, in future, global pharmaceutical companies will need to change their ball game almost radically. The future strategy will focus on collaborative arrangements between various allied healthcare establishments and the pharmaceutical companies to offer a “holistic solution” to the patients in all disease areas.

That means, global manufacturer of an anti-diabetic drug will need to offer along with the innovative drug, counseling on diet regimen, suggesting exercise programs and their follow-up, reminders for regular and timely intake of medicines and many more. Who knows?

“Better late than never”:

In any case, to excel in business at a time when the global pharmaceutical business model is undergoing a fundamental shift; there is a need to keep on investing more towards R&D, which will continue to remain the ultimate growth engine of pharmaceutical business, the world over. At the same time, there will be a dire need to prune expenditure in innovative ways and that opens the door for global outsourcing of various business processes from most cost efficient countries having world class facilities.

Domestic pharmaceutical players, if start mustering all resources to avail these global opportunities, India can soon become a global hub for pharmaceuticals outsourcing, outracing China which is currently placed ahead of India, in this field. As the good old saying goes, I shall always wish, “better late than never”.

By Tapan Ray

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

Is the world now moving towards ‘Global Patent’ system?

Posted on by
Reply
A brief background:
In June 19, 1970 an International patent law treaty was signed in Washington, initially with 18 contracting states. This treaty is called ‘The Patent Co-operation Treaty’ (PCT), which came into force on January 24, 1978 and was subsequently amended in 1979 and further modified in 1984 and 2001.In August, 1998 India joined the Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT) by acceding to the Paris Convention on Intellectual Property. As on March 7, 2009, 141 states including all major industrialized countries, are signatories to the PCT.

PCT system, as we know, facilitates filing of patent applications under one roof with simpler procedure for search and examination of applications. This allows innovators of a PCT member country to obtain the effect of patent filings in any or all of the PCT countries.

The procedure currently followed by PCT is as follows:

“A single filing of an international application is made with a ‘Receiving Office’ (RO) in one language. It then results in a ‘search’ performed by an ‘International Searching Authority’ (ISA), accompanied by a written opinion regarding ‘patentability’ of the invention, which is the subject of application. This is optionally followed by a preliminary examination performed by an ‘International Preliminary Examination Authority’ (IPEA). Finally, the examination (if provided by national law) and grant procedures are handled by the relevant national and regional authorities.”

Currently the PCT does not lead to the grant of an ‘International Patent’.

WIPO recognizes Indian Patent Office as an ISA and IPEA:

Recently under PCT, ‘The World Intellectual Property Organization’ (WIPO) has recognized the Indian Patent Office (IPO) as an International Searching Authority (ISA) and International Preliminary Examining Authority (IPEA).

Besides India, other countries which have this recognition are Austria, Australia, Canada, China, EU, Spain, Finland, Japan, Korea, Russia, Sweden and the USA.

This recognition will help India the following ways:

1. Through PCT route India will now receive international patent applications from WIPO for search and preliminary examinations. This will enable IPO to generate revenue in form of fees paid to ISA and IPEA.

2. This recognition would help the innovators of the country to avail patentability search, obtain IPER and written opinions much faster and at a cheaper rate.

Is the world now moving towards ‘Global Patent’ system?

Recently a document has been published by WIPO for the meeting of PCT working group scheduled at Geneva from May 4 to May 8, 2009. The outcome of the meeting is not known to me, as yet. This document includes a proposal from the United States Patent and Trade Mark Office (USPTO) for having a relook at the existing international patent system. This relook and discussion could translate into development of an entirely new Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT), which perhaps would be termed as PCT II.

The key feature of the proposed PCT II is that all patent applications, which will successfully pass through scrutiny of both international/national processing system would automatically receive patent grants in all the member countries.

While discussing this process within the PCT working group, it is anticipated that following two key issues will crop up for an intense debate:

1. Harmonization
2. Sovereignty

However, many feel that an appropriate protocol system could be put in place to take care of both these concerns, where after release of an affirmative international patentability report, each member country will be given certain period of time to refuse the grant patent in that particular country, clearly specifying the reasons for the same.

In true sense it may not mean grant of a global patent, but definitely could be considered as a bold step towards that direction. PCT II, if sees the light of the day, is expected to create a much easier type of patent granting procedure.

To make it effective, existing PCT structure will need to undergo some significant changes. The new structure is expected to ensure a very high quality output. The member countries, who will work in tandem, should find the new procedures and systems much more user-friendly and at the same time efficient in ensuring comprehensive search between multiple offices that incorporate prior art submissions by the applicants and third parties.

However, if PCT II gets accepted in principle by all the member countries, a detail mechanism to effectively operate such a complex system to be worked out with great precision, ensuring full satisfaction to all concerned.

In India, this new development will certainly be examined with a ‘tooth comb’ and rightly so. It is expected that all pros and cons will be carefully examined by the country, getting fully involved in this international debate, before arriving at a final decision. On the face of it ‘PCT II’ appears to be a novel concept, which deserves due consideration by all the stakeholders and in no case to be summarily brushed aside following the shrill voices of some skeptics.

By Tapan 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.

With significant competitive edge should Global Biotech Companies consider entry into high potential ‘Biosimilar drugs’ business?

Posted on by
Reply
‘Biosimilar drugs’ – rapid future growth potential:
In most of the developed countries of the world, besides regulatory issues, ‘Biosimilar drugs’are considered a threat to the fast growing global biotech industry. However, many believe that innovative biotech companies can have a head start with all wherewithals at their disposal, compared to generic pharmaceutical companies, to convert this seemingly significant threat into a bright emerging opportunity and derive the best possible mileage out of such changing environment.

Sandoz (Novartis) – first to launch a ‘Biosimilar drug’ in the USA:

In mid 2006, US FDA approved its first ‘Biosimilar drug’; Omnitrope of Sandoz (Novartis) following a court directive in the U.S. Omnitrope is a copycat version of Pfizer’s human growth hormone, Genotropin. Interestingly, Sandoz (Novartis) had taken the U.S FDA to court as the regulatory approval of Omnitrope was kept pending by them, in absence of a defined regulatory pathway for ‘Biosimilar drugs’ in USA.

The CEO of Sandoz had then commented, “The FDA’s approval is a breakthrough in our goal of making high-quality and cost-effective follow-on biotechnology medicines like Omnitrope available for healthcare providers and patients worldwide.” Despite this event, no one at that time expected the U.S FDA to start commencing approval of other ‘Biosimilar drugs’ within the country.

‘Biosimilar drugs’ – emerging global interest:

Thereafter, many developments are fast taking place in the space of ‘Biosimilar drugs’, the world over. To fetch maximum benefits out of this emerging opportunity, India is also taking steps to tighten its regulatory reform process for ‘Biosimilar drugs’ to allay general fear and apprehensions regarding safety of such drugs, in absence of adequate clinical data for the specific protein substance.

Merck’s entry in ‘Biosimilar drugs’ business is through an acquisition:

In the west Merck announced its entry into the ‘Biosimilar drugs’ business on February 12, 2009, while announcing its acquisition of Insmed’s portfolio of ‘Biosimilar drugs’ for U.S$130 million in cash. Rich pipeline of follow-on biologics of Insmed is expected to help Merck to hasten its entry into global ‘Biosimilar drugs’ markets.

Current status of ‘Biosimilar drugs’ in the USA:

The new administration of President Barak Obama has expressed its strong intent to pave the way for regulatory guidelines for ‘Biosimilar drugs’ in the USA. To facilitate this process, the new draft legislation titled, “Promoting Innovation and Access to Life Saving Medicine Act” has already been introduced by the legislators of the country. This legislation, when will come into force would help define guidelines for approval of ‘Biosimilar drugs’ in the USA with just a five year exclusivity period to the innovative products, against a demand of 14 years by the global biotechnology industry.

Lucrative Global market potential for ‘Biosimilar drugs’:

It is estimated that only in the top two largest pharmaceutical markets of the world, USA and EU, sales of ‘Biosimilar drugs’ will record a turnover of U.S$ 16 billion in next two years and around U.S$ 60 billion by year 2010, when about 60 biotech products will go off-patent.

Opportunity for the Indian biotech companies:

Such a lucrative business opportunity in the west will obviously attract many Indian players, like, Biocon, Dr. Reddy’s Labs, Ranbaxy, Wockhardt etc, who have already acquired expertise in the development of ‘Biosimilar drugs’ in India like, erythropoietin, insulin, monoclonal antibodies, interferon-alfa. Domestic Indian biotech players are not only marketing these products in India but also exporting them to other non/less-regulated markets of the world.

Indian Companies are fast preparing to take a sizable share of the global pie of ‘Biosimilar drugs’ market:

Ranbaxy in collaboration with Zenotech Laboratories is engaged in global development of Granulocyte Colony-Stimulating Factor (GCSF) formulations. Wockhards is expected to enter into the Global ‘Biosimilar drugs’ market by 2010. Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories and Biocon are also preparing themselves for global development and marketing of insulin products, GCSF and streptokinase formulations.

Government of India funding for development of ‘Biosimilar drugs’ in India:

It has been reported that the Department of Biotechnology (DBT) of the Government of India has a proposal for funding of U.S$ 68 million through public private partnership (PPP) initiatives, where soft loans at the rate of interest of just 2% will be made available to the Indian biotech companies for development of ‘Biosimilar drugs’. Currently DBT spends around U.S$200 million annually towards biotechnology related initiatives.

Advantage India:

Experience in conforming to stringent U.S FDA manufacturing standards, having largest number of U.S FDA approved plant outside USA; India has acquired a great advantage in manufacturing similar high technology products in India. Significant improvement in conformance to Good Clinical Practices (GCP) standards in India offers additional advantages.

Two available choices for the innovator companies:

With increasing global cost-containment pressures within the healthcare space, emergence of a lucrative global ‘Biosimilar drugs’ market with appropriate defined regulatory pathway in place is inevitable now.

Major global research based companies will now have two clear choices in the fast evolving situation. The first choice is the conventional one of competing with the ‘Biosimilar drugs’ in all important markets of the world. However, the second choice of jumping into the fray of ‘Biosimilar drugs’ business keeping focus on R&D undiluted, appears to be more prudent to me and perhaps will also make a better business sense. Only future will tell us, which of these two business senses will prevail, in the long run for the global biotech companies.

By Tapan 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.

Growing menace of counterfeit drugs in India: why is the domestic pharmaceutical industry still so apprehensive with the new Amendments of the ACT?

Posted on by
Reply
The growing menace of Counterfeit drugs has remained a serious threat to the healthcare space of India.
Do we have any credible data to assess the magnitude of this menace in India?

No we do not have, as yet. At this stage, the magnitude of the problem is anybody’s guess. Earlier a study sponsored by the World Health Organization (WHO) and conducted by SEARPharm reported that only 0.3% drugs were spurious and 3% of drugs were counterfeits.

Government of India has initiated the largest study in the world to quantify the problem:

To scientifically assess the magnitude of the problem in terms of real size of counterfeit drugs market in India , the Drugs Controller General of India (DCGI) India’s, for the first time ever, has initiated one of the largest studies in the world, as reported by the Times of India May 14, 2008.

The study has already identified 61 popular drug brands from nine therapeutic categories for testing 24000 samples. These include drugs prescribed for tuberculosis, malaria, allergic disorders, diabetes cardiovascular conditions, vitamins etc. This study is expected to cost 50 million rupees or about U.S$1.0 million and is expected to be published, soon.

Making provisions for stricter penalties through amendment of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940:

To bring into effect stricter penalties for those involved in counterfeit drugs, the process of amendment of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 was proposed by the Ministry of Health in October, 2007. These amendments are expected to make the drug-related offences, cognisable and non-bailable.

The latest amendment to the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 became a law in 2008. The punishment for selling or distributing spurious drugs, which are likely to cause death and grievous hurt to the patients, is now imprisonment for a term not less than 10 years and fine not less than Rs 10 lakh or three times the value of drugs confiscated, whichever is more.

The Minister of Health of India announced in November 2008, that with this amendment the Government of India will “go all out to do away with spurious drugs.”

India working closely with WHO Anti-counterfeiting Taskforce:

India being a part of ‘International Medical Products Anti-Counterfeiting Taskforce’ (IMPACT), established under WHO in 2006, decided to work together to combat the growing menace of counterfeit medicines.

The Drugs Controller General of India (DCGI) was reported to have several discussions with the convenor of the IMPACT to effectively address the issue of such serious threats to the patients at large. Many people believe that China and India are the main source of counterfeit drugs in the world.

Apprehensions of the Indian Pharmaceutical Industry with new Amendments in the Law:

Indian Pharmaceutical Industry although welcomed the stricter punitive provisions in the law, expressed its apprehensions due to lack of clear demarcation between the definitions of spurious drugs and those which can lose their original potency because of improper transportation and storage.

If the law-enforcing authorities pick up such medicines from retail outlets, those can easily get categorised as spurious medicines under Section 17A and 17B of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940. Consequently the concerned manufacturers could be put behind bars with, presumably, no fault at their end.

While stringent punishment is essential for those involved in such heinous crime, the Government should take enough measures to ensure that genuine drug manufacturers are not harassed by the law enforcing authorities, as the courts will have no judicial discretion to award less than minimum punishment, as prescribed under this Act.

Need for clear guidelines for implementation of the amended ACT:

To allay the major apprehension of the industry regarding possible misuse of some provisions of the Act, the Ministry of Health is expected to work out and quickly announce clear guidelines for implementation of the act by the law enforcement agencies in different parts of India.

Will this amendment help to win the fight against counterfeit drugs?

Only time will be able to give that answer. However, by amending the Act, the Government of India has demonstrated its resolve to address the threat of counterfeit drugs with iron hand. Through enunciation of above guidelines, all concerned are expected to be taken on board to effectively curb, if not totally eliminate this growing menace, for the sake of humanity.

By Tapan 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.

Fixed Dose Combination’ drugs market in India is growing faster – are there enough regulatory checks and balances to prevent market entry of ‘irrational combinations’ to ensure patients’ safety?

Posted on by
Reply
The WHO Model of FDCs:The 2005 ʹProcedure to update and disseminate the WHO Model List of Essential Medicines, Criteria for Selection‘ includes the following statement regarding fixed dose combination products (FDCs):ʺMost essential medicines should be formulated as single compounds. Fixed‐dose combination products are selected only when the combination has a proven advantage over single compounds administered separately in therapeutic effect, safety, and adherence or in delaying the development of drug resistance in malaria, tuberculosis and HIV/ AIDS.ʺ

FDCs need to demonstrate clinical efficacy and safety beyond that for the individual drugs given alone. They would also need to ‘demonstrate bioequivalence of the single combined dose unit with the components administered in the same doses separately but concomitantly’.

‘Adherence’ aspect of WHO Model for FDCs is also important. Problems with ‘adherence’ could lead to inadequate and inconsistent dosing, which in turn could lead to development of drug resistance. FDCs, therefore, are expected to improve compliance reducing the risk of development of drug resistance.

However, one of the major disadvantages with the FDCs is lack of flexibility in adjusting dose of individual ingredients, even if it is required for some patients. Internationally, most popular example is the FDCs of antiretroviral drugs for HIV infected patients like, Combivir, Trzivir, Kaletra etc. Besides, there are FDCs for various other disease areas, like, infections, respiratory and cardiovascular disorders etc.

New FDCs are patent protected in the USA:

In the western world, like the USA, new FDCs may also get patent protection. A company may obtain marketing exclusivity for a new FDC even when individual active ingredients go off patent. However, in India FDCs cannot be patented as per Patent Acts of India 2005.

Market attractiveness for FDCs in India:

In India the market for FDCs is very large and growing much faster, in sharp contrast to the western world. Because of growing market demand, pharmaceutical companies in India tend to market FDCs of all different permutations and combination, at times even crossing the line of a ‘sound medical rationale’. For this reason, we find in the website of ‘Central Drugs Standard Control Organization’ (CDSCO), the banned list of so many FDCs.

Lack of regulatory compliance has created a messy situation with FDCs in India:

Introduction of new FDCs does not only warrant a ‘sound medical rationale’ but also ‘strict conformance to all prescribed regulatory requirements’ for the sake of patents’ safety.

To check unfettered market introduction of potentially harmful FDCs, the Ministry of Health issued a Notification in September 1988, including FDCs in Rule 122 E of the Drugs & Cosmetics Rules (D&CR) 1945. In effect, it removed the powers of the State FDAs to give manufacturing or marketing approval of FDCs. After the notification was issued, all manufacturers/marketers of all FDCs are required to apply only to the Drug Controller General of India (DCGI) under Rule 122E of the D&CR 1945 as a new drug, along with the stipulated fees by way of a Treasury Challan.

Since this entire process entails relatively more regulatory data generation, besides the time and expenses involved, the above Rule was continuously and deliberately broken and manufacturing and marketing approvals were routinely sought and obtained from the State FDAs. Many believe that the State FDAs were equally responsible for knowingly flaunting the Law, as were the pharmaceutical companies.

Patients’ safety – the key concern:

This complicity resulted in the market being flooded with ‘irrational combinations’ which posed a real threat to patients’ safety. The state FDAs were reminded of the Notification by the earlier DCGI. 294 FDCs got caught in this dispute. The important issue of patients’ safety in that process got converted into a legal issue, as many FDC manufacturers chose to go to the court of law to redress their grievances in this matter.

Untangling the messy knot:

As the issue got trapped into various prolonged litigations, the current DCGI took initiative of resolving this contentious issue with the help of an expert committee, involving the manufacturers.

This subcommittee cleared 48 FDCs under ‘similar FDCs already approved’, after discussing the merits and demerits, including pharmacodynamics, pharmacokinetics, side effects, dosage, medical rationale etc. of each ingredient and the combinations. The decision of the Sub Committee was then submitted to the Drug Technical Advisory Board (DTAB).

After formal approval of DTAB, a notification is expected to be issued subsequent to which each of these combinations will be construed to be a new drug and any company wishing to market/manufacture the formulation will require submitting its Application in Form 44 to the DCGI to get approval in Form 45. The process will be completed after the balance 142 FDCs, which need further examination, are individually approved.

This issue sends a clear signal to all concerned that resorting to any form of shortcuts to bypass strict adherence to prescribed regulatory requirements, could seriously jeopardise the patients’ safety. The number of FDCs banned by CDSCO and also ban of those FDCs agreed and accepted by the industry without any challenge during the above process, will vindicate this point.

Solving the current logjam is not enough:

Solving the current logjam on FDCs by the DCGI is a onetime exercise and will perhaps clear a serious mess-up created over a long period of time. It can definitely not be an ongoing process. Neither will it be desirable. There is an absolute and urgent need to follow the WHO Model for FDCs, in India, as indicated above, through appropriate regulatory processes. At the same time, the DCGI should ensure strict compliance of the Notification issued by Ministry of Health on FDCs, in September 1988. Otherwise, unchecked entry of FDCs of all possible permutations and combinations could pose a serious threat to patients’ interest and safety.

Meeting unmet needs of the patients with high quality drugs of scientifically proven high efficacy and safety profile should always define the purpose of existence of the pharmaceutical industry. Any patients’ safety related issue deserves no scope for any compromise.

By Tapan 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.

Revised Mashelkar Committee Report recommends inclusion of ‘incremental innovation’ under patentability criteria.

Posted on by
Reply
In 2006, the Government of India appointed a Technical Expert Group (TEG) chaired by the eminent scientist and the then Director General of the Council of Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR) Dr. R.A. Mashelkar, with the following terms of reference:1. Whether it would be TRIPS compatible to limit the grant of patent for pharmaceutical substance to new chemical entity or to new medical entity involving one or more inventive steps.2. Whether it would be TRIPS compatible to exclude micro-organisms from patenting.The TEG submitted its report to the Government on December 29, 2006. However, due to some ‘technical inaccuracies’ Dr. Mashelkar sought the permission of the Government on February 19, 2007 “to re-examine and resubmit the report, which meets with the requirements of the highest standards’’. This request was acceded by the Government on 7th of March 2007.

Much water had flown down the bridge thereafter, which we shall not deliberate upon here. Ultimately in March 2009 the TEG submitted its revised report.

In terms of overall content, the revised report is similar to the previous one, which was withdrawn earlier.

Conclusions of the revised TEG report:

The conclusions of the report against the terms of references given to the TEG are as follows:

1. “It would not be TRIPS compliant to limit granting of patents for pharmaceutical substance to New Chemical Entities only, since it prima facie amounts to a ‘statutory exclusion of a field of technology’. However, every effort must be made to provide drugs at affordable prices to the people of India. Further, every effort should be made to prevent the grant of frivolous patents and ‘ever-greening’. Detailed Guidelines should be formulated and rigorously used by the Indian Patent Office for examining the patent applications in the pharmaceutical sector so that the remotest possibility of granting frivolous patents is eliminated.”

2. “Excluding micro-organisms per se from patent protection would be violative of TRIPS Agreement.”

Does section 3(d) warrant an amendment now?

It is indeed interesting to note that under Para 5.11 the TEG says, “the committee was not mandated to examine the TRIPS compatibility of Section 3(d) of the Indian Patents Act or any other existing provision in the same Act. Therefore, the committee has not engaged itself into these issues.”

However, in Para 5.32 the report observes the following:

“Innovative incremental improvements based on existing knowledge and existing products is a ‘norm’ rather than an ‘exception’ in the process of innovation. Entirely new chemical structures with new mechanisms of action are a rarity. Therefore, ‘incremental innovations’ involving new forms, analogs, etc. but which have significantly better safety and efficacy standards, need to be encouraged.”

With this observation, TEG has also clarified the scope of section 3(d), indirectly though.

The report further recommends, “detailed Guidelines should be formulated and rigorously used by the Indian Patent Office for examining the patent applications in the pharmaceutical sector so that the remotest possibility of granting frivolous patents is eliminated.”

What next?

It will be interesting to watch what the Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion (DIPP) does with this revised report. As we have seen that the report categorically states:

“It would not be TRIPS compliant to limit granting of patents for pharmaceutical substance to New Chemical Entities only, since it prima facie amounts to a statutory exclusion of a field of technology”

And

“Innovative incremental improvements based on existing knowledge and existing products is a ‘norm’ rather than an ‘exception’ in the process of innovation. Entirely new chemical structures with new mechanisms of action are a rarity. Therefore, ‘incremental innovations’ involving new forms, analogs, etc. but which have significantly better safety and efficacy standards, need to be encouraged.”

Therefore, taking these two recommendations together my questions are as follows:

1. Will the DIPP conclude that Section 3(d) of the Patent Acts 2005 is not TRIPS compliant?

2. If so, will the DIPP recommend an amendment of this section sooner to encourage ‘incremental innovation’ within the country?

3. If not, will the DIPP clarify now the need, purpose and the importance of this report?

By Tapan 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.