Tag Archives: Pharmaceuticals

‘Jan Aushadhi’ – ‘Medicines for the common man’ project of DoP is a great idea – is it on course?

Posted on by
Reply
In mid 2008 The Government of India created a new department, ‘The Department of Pharmaceuticals’ (DoP), under the Ministry of Chemicals and Fertilisers. The new department came out with its following vision statement:“To enable Indian pharmaceuticals industry to play a leading role in the global market and to ensure abundant availability, at reasonable prices within the country, of good quality pharmaceuticals of mass consumption.”‘Jan Aushadhi’ – ‘Medicines for the common man’:

In this article, I shall submit my point of view on the second part of the above vision statement, which articulated the responsibility of the department to ensure availability of affordable modern medicine for ‘mass consumption’.

When over 70% of Indian population lives in rural areas, one can quite easily assume that such medicines will be available adequately in rural areas of the country, as well. Obviously the question that follows this admirable vision statement is how?

To respond to this question one will try to address the following two basic strategic issues:

1. Create a workable and viable business model, which can be gradually developed over a period
of time to deliver the promise

2. Create a robust supply chain network to ensure easy access of these medicines to the common
man, located even in remote rural areas.

The first part of the strategic issue has been well addressed by the DoP, within a very short period, by creating ‘Jan Aushadhi’, the medicines for the masses. Importantly, the second point, which will determine the success of the project, has not been clearly articulated.

The objectives of the ‘Jan Aushadhi’ were stated as follows:

1. To promote awareness for cost effective quality generic medicines. (However, how exactly this will be done, is yet to be known.)

2. To make available unbranded affordable quality generic medicines through private public partnership (PPP). (I support this objective from procurement perspective. However, so far as the delivery of these medicines to the common man is concerned, I would argue below:why do we reinvent the wheel?)

3. To encourage doctors in the Government Hospitals to prescribe such cost effective quality
generic medicines. (This is again just a statement of intent without considering the critical issue of its implementation in the predominantly branded generic market, like India.)

4. To help patients save significantly towards medicine cost with ‘Jan Aushadhi’ outlets.

5. A national help line is believed to be able to increase awareness level of this initiative.

The statements of intent of the DoP also highlight that the State Governments, NGOs and Charitable bodies will be encouraged to set up such generic medicine shops. It also states that the existing outlets of the Government and NGOs may also be used for this cause.

This particular decision of DoP, as I stated before, appears to be an attempt to ‘re-invent the wheel’, as it were. I shall argue on this subject, very shortly.

An open ended launch plan with inadequate market penetration compared to set objectives:

DoP announced that this scheme will be launched gradually in all the districts of India in four phases. However, for some unknown reasons, besides phase one and two, the other two phases of the launch plan have been kept by the department, as open ended as it could be, despite the Government of India’s having all wherewithals to implement this scheme with a reasonable degree of preciseness.

The four phases were decided as follows:

1. Phase 1: Amritsar Civil Hospital in November 8, 2008

2. Phase 2: Few stores in Delhi, National Capital Region (NCR), district hospitals in Mohali,
Ludhiana, Bhatinda and Jalandhar by February 28, 2009

3. Phase 3: Other districts of Punjab and some other states to be covered during 2009 and
2010

4. Phase 4: Remaining districts of the country by 2010 and 2012

I am not surprised that with such vague launch plan and an open ended timeline, the Government seems to have faltered in Phase 2 itself, when it could not go beyond Amritsar and Shastri Bhavan, Delhi outlets, by February, 28, 2009.

Arguing for the need of a course correction:

Despite being a hardcore optimist, I now get a vague feeling that the ‘Jan Aushadhi’ scheme of the DoP may not ultimately be able to achieve its cherished goals and may remain just as another good intention of the Government of India, if a course correction is not made at this stage.

The key barrier to improve access to affordable quality generic medicine to the common man, in this particular case, is not conceptualization of a project. We all know that our Government is reasonably good at it, with a good number of brilliant minds working to give a shape to it. The main weakness to translate this laudable idea into reality, in my view, falls well within the general weakness of the Government in visualizing the key barriers to the project and at the same time missing out on some of the key drivers for the same.

In this case, there seems to be some flaw in the ‘ideation’ stage of the project, as well. This flaw lies with the plan of its delivery mechanism involving state government, NGOs and various other bodies.

If procurement of cost effective quality generic medicines is not an issue, then the DoP should carefully look within the Government system to ensure easy access of such medicines to the common man.

Two grossly underutilized Government controlled ‘mass delivery systems’:

The Government of India has two very unique product distribution and delivery systems within the country with deep penetration from metro cities to even far off rural areas. These two Government owned supply and delivery chains are as follows:

1. Public Distribution System (PDS) for food grains and other essential commodities (Ration shops).

2. Indian Post Offices

Like food grains, medicines are also essential items. Why then DoP not collaborate with PDS to ensure easy access of such medicines to the common man?

Similarly, when postal department are collaborating with various other agencies to sell and distribute many types of products in rural areas, why not DoP consider this alternative, as well?

In fact, I would strongly recommend usage of both PDS and Post Offices by the DoP for deeper penetration of such medicines especially for the benefit of those 650 million people of India who do not have any access to affordable modern medicines.

I am aware, the question of ‘in-efficiency’ of these systems may be raised by many in India. However, at the end of the day who is responsible to make these systems efficient? People responsible for managing a system or process are usually held accountable for its ‘efficiency’ or ‘inefficiency’.

We have many excellent minds in the DoP, I hope, they may wish to explore the possibility of effectively utilizing these two already available state controlled mass distribution systems to ensure success of the project “Jan Ausadhi” – “Medicines for the common man”.

It is worth noting that this project seems to have already started limping with its vague execution plan and a delivery system, the scaling up of which to ensure access to one billion population of our country could be a serious question mark.

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.

The stormy debate on wrongful grant of pharma product patents – a countdown of the news events, for a quick perspective.

Posted on by
Reply
To give a quick perspective to this debate, I reckon, a countdown of five reported news events on the subject will be helpful. I start from February, 2009 and gradually go one year back, to February, 2008, to capture the key elements of this stormy debate. Finally, I move to ‘ground zero’ to explore the basic remedial measures to effectively address the issue.Event 5‘The Economic times’ (ET) dated February 24, 2009 reported an interesting news item titled, “Dichotomy between patent law and practice”. The timing of this article, with its various quotes, highlighting the following points, evokes interest:

1.“Indian patent authorities are virtually not following the spirit of the Sections 3(d) and 3(e)”.

2.“A large number of patents granted in India since 2005 pertain to products first patented in 1970s, 1980s, and 1990s, most of which were launched in Indian markets long before 2005, the year of introduction of product patenting in the country”.

3.“The patent applicants are not making adequate disclosures, making it difficult for potential challengers to file post-grant objections which the law provides for. Since the International Non-proprietary Name (INN) is not of the drug is often not given along with the Title of the Patent, it is cumbersome for anyone to trace the patent to the original PCT (Patent Cooperation Treaty) application and have an idea about how new it is”.

4.“Many law firms refuse to take briefs from Indian companies, because their multinational clients do not permit them to do so! The result— post-grant objection facility is not effectively used by Indian companies.”

Why are these observations interesting?

These observations are interesting because for point number 1 to 3, as stated above, following three recourses are available to all:

1. After publication of the patent applied for, in the patent journal, one can file a pre-grant opposition.

2. Assuming that someone has missed this opportunity, the provision for filing post grant opposition will still be there.

3. Assuming that both the opportunities have been missed due to some reasons and one could not understand the details of the patent applied for, during the patent granting process, the opportunity of going to a Court of law with a request to make such patents (which have violated section 3.d) invalid, will still exist.

It is indeed very difficult to understand why such measures are not being taken by the aggrieved parties, as specified in the law.

Point number four is even more difficult to understand. When lawyers are available to the domestic companies to defend alleged patent infringement, why then lawyers will not be available to them to take such objections to a court of law?

Event 4

Mint dated October 7, 2008 in its article titled; “Cozy deals and conflicting interest mark patent granting process” reported the following:

“There are even local and multinational corporates who ‘seek’ help of examiners and controllers to get their applications drafted, thereby ensuring a grant for a price”.

Event 3

‘The Economic Times’ dated July 1, 2008 reported in its article titled, “Cipla gets patent for Nexium, Fosamax modified versions” that Mumbai Patent office granted these two patents to Cipla in April, 2008 for new forms of two well known blockbuster drugs, Esomeprazole (Nexium of Astra Zeneca) and Alendronate (Fosamax of Merck). This news came as a big surprise because Cipla is well known for its continuous accusation to innovator companies for trying to extend ‘monopoly’ period by ever-greening patent through similar means. The report, therefore, raised a very valid question, whether Cipla has ‘walked the talk’ in India? It will be interesting to know on what basis Cipla managed to overcome the ‘efficacy’ barriers under section 3(d).

On this ET report, well known IPR expert Shamnad Basheer wrote the following in his blog dated July 6, 2008:

“Reading the ET piece, Nathan Evans of Finnegan Henderson, who’s a very astute commentator on the Indian patent scene and has written a couple of articles in this regard posed this question to me:

“This makes me wonder if the patent office in India will apply the laws less strictly to Indian pharmas than MNCs (kind of like they apply the patent laws more strictly for essential medicines)”

Shamnad Basheer concluded his comment on this subject with the following observations:

“How ought section 3(d) to be interpreted when our very own generic manufacturers are applying for supposedly “incremental” inventions?”

Event 2

According to Federation of Indian Chambers of Commerce (FICCI) report dated March 7, 2008, FICCI and the Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion (DIPP), Ministry of Commerce and Industry have joined hands to set up a working group to improve Intellectual Property regime in India.
It will be interesting to know the view of this joint working group between the Government and the Industries, in this matter. I have not read anywhere any comments of this important working group on such matter, so far.

Event 1

‘Thomson and Reuters patent focus report’ dated February, 2009 observed absence of clear guidelines (Manual of Patent Practice and Procedure) about some of the complex provisions of patent law, particularly section 3(d). The report indicated that there should be clarity on what would qualify as “enhanced efficacy” under section 3(d) so that it can help the patent examiners to clearly make out which patent applications would fall under section 3(d).

Ground Zero:

Let us now try to ponder, realize and fathom the core issue of this problem, which lies at the ‘Ground Zero’. Thus far we have been reading constant allegations about the functioning of Indian Patent Offices and even on their integrity and honesty.

In absence of a well drafted, long overdue, Patent Manual, all concerned, including patent examiners will have their own ways of looking into “enhanced efficacy”. In such a situation, I shall not be surprised if the Patent Examiners suffer from the dilemma as to what exactly will constitute “enhanced efficacy”.

Protracted debate with the stakeholders on the ‘draft patent manual’ appears to be over now. The last stakeholders’ meeting on this subject was concluded in Kolkata following Delhi, Mumbai and Bangalore, several months ago. However, the final Patent Manual is still not in place, which has been kept for public inspection since 2005.

To address this stormy debate, in my view, we need to:

1. Push for expeditious release and implementation of the Patent Manual (Manual of Patent Practice
and Procedure).

2. Let FICCI – DIPP working group work more effectively and cohesively for better functioning of the
new IPR (Intellectual Property Rights) regime.

3. Let ‘capacity building’ exercise at the Indian Patent office (IPO) continue with greater speed.

Mere accusation and constant bashing of the IPOs, as we now see around, may not yield much result. After having taken the above measures, if similar dissatisfaction in any quarter still remains, let law take its own course. Despite great apprehensions by some, as quoted above under point 1, never mind, enough lawyers will be available to fight such cases.

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.

R&D and Protection of IPR related to Pharma sector, are now the responsibilities of the Department of Pharmaceuticals (DoP) – a quick look at the initiatives taken by the department.

Posted on by
Reply
On July 2, 2008, the Cabinet Secretariat of the Government of India notified creation of a new department to be known as the Department of Pharmaceuticals (DoP) under the Ministry of Chemicals and Fertilisers with an objective to have a sharper focus on the Pharmaceuticals Industry of India. In that notification besides other important areas, Research and Development (R&D) and protection of Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) related to the Pharmaceutical sector, were brought under the newly created department.In this discussion let us try to have a look at the progress in both the R&D and IPRareas, separately.After creation of the new department, the Minister of Chemicals and Fertilisers Shri Ram Vilas Paswan, announced a proposed allocation of Rs. 10,000 crores (around US$ 2 billion), together with necessary regulatory reforms, towards annual Pharmaceutical R&D funding by the DoP.

The Government expects that such initiatives will help bringing in transformation of the Indian Pharmaceutical Industry from brilliant and highly successful ‘imitators’ to world class ‘innovators’ of path breaking medicines. Discovery of such medicines in India is also expected to help the Government significantly, to improve access to affordable innovative modern medicines to the common man of the country. All these are no doubt, very laudable initiatives by the DoP, with a very capable, effective and a ‘can do’ leader at its helm.

The DoP plans to bring in significant changes in the clinical trial facilities available within the country. Currently even very basic clinical trials on ‘dogs’ cannot be undertaken because of protests from the activists related to ‘prevention of cruelty on animals’. Such reform measures, I am sure, will be sincerely welcomed by many.

It is interesting to note that the DoP is also planning to extend Regulatory Data Protection (RDP) to innovators. It has been reported that the invaluable data generated by the innovators towards development of the New Molecular Entity (NME) will, in near future, be protected from ‘piracy’ during 20 year patent life of the product. However, the DoP cautions that attempt to ‘evergreen patent’ through data protection, beyond the patent life of a product will not be permitted.

The argument of the innovators on this issue is that Product Patent and Clinical Data are two different types of intellectual properties and should not be considered as one and the same. While patent protection is extended for discovery of the molecule, data protection is for the immense and expensive clinical data that the innovators share with the Government for regulatory approval of the patented molecule, within the country. The argument that such valuable data generated by the innovators is an intellectual property (IP), lies in the premise that if the innovator would not have been required to part with the data with the regulatory authorities, such data would have been regarded as a ‘trade secret’, which is an IP. Therefore, the innovators argue that for sharing this IP with the Government, specific period of data protection to be extended to them, which should be unrelated to the life of the patent.

Thus far, we see that DoP has taken some very important and admirable initiatives to encourage R&D within the country. However, while looking at another important area of its responsibility i.e. protection of IPR within the Pharmaceutical sector, nothing has been announced by the department, as yet.

Encouraging R&D without effective protection of IPR, points towards an incomplete agenda to effectively address pharmaceutical product innovation related issues by the department. I sincerely hope that the DoP will soon announce its policy initiatives towards IPR protection to further encourage the innovators, both within and outside the country.

The DoP has taken some significant steps to address various important issues of the pharmaceutical industry under its terms of reference, within a very short period. I look forward to knowing from the DoP the detail initiatives in each of its nine functions and responsibilities, as announced in the notification of the cabinet secretariat on July 2, 2008.

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.

The heated debate on WHO IMPACT definition of Counterfeit Drugs is now on a ‘pause’ – A time to evaluate the reasons for supporting and opposing it.

Posted on by
Reply
The World Health Organisation (WHO), in December 2008, proposed the following new definition, as prepared by the International Medical Products Anti-Counterfeiting Taskforce (IMPACT):“A medical product is counterfeit when there is a false representation in relation to its identity and/or source. This applies to the product, its container or other packaging or labeling information. Counterfeiting can apply to both branded and generic products. Counterfeits may include products with correct ingredients/components, with wrong ingredients/components, without active ingredients, with incorrect amounts of active ingredients, or with fake packaging.”This definition, indeed, created a furor in India. The Ministry of Health of the Government of India initiated discussions, on this issue, with the stakeholders and by mid-January, 2009 a consensus was arrived at between the Drug Controller General of India (DCGI) and the generic industry on much debated definition of counterfeit drugs. It was reported that the Government had decided to place this definition before the World Health Organisation (WHO) in its next meeting on the subject. The consensus definition, after the above meeting, was reported as follows:

“A medical product (medicine, vaccine, diagnostics and medical implants/devices) is counterfeit when it is deliberately and fraudulently mislabelled with respect to its identity and/or source. Counterfeit can apply to components with wrong ingredients/components without active ingredients, with incorrect amounts of active ingredients, or with fake package”

In end-January 2009, although it was reported that under pressure from the developing countries like, India, WHO has dropped this new definition, it is very likely that the initiative is now just on a ‘pause’ mode.

Let us now try to explore the ‘Eye’ of this stormy debate and its relevance to India. The ‘eye’ of the storm lies mainly within the following 3 key concerns of the opponents of the definition:

1. False representation of identity and source applies not only to labeling but also to the ‘product,
its container or other packaging’
2. The new definition could include Intellectual Property Right (IPR) issues and as a cosequence of
which, Indian generics could run into the risk of being branded as counterfeit
3. Removal of the words ‘fraudulent and deliberate’ from the original definition and replacing them
with ‘false representation’ will shift the burden of proof

In India, the share of voice of those opposing this definition was undoubtedly much more than those who were supporting it. However, the rationale for supporting the definition, in Indian context, appears to be much stronger than opposing it.

While arguing on this point, I am of the view that most of the apprehensions expressed above have been abundantly clarified in the definitions of Misbranded drugs (section 17), and Spurious drugs (Section 17 B) of the Indian Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940.

Let us now have a quick look at the Section 17 and Section 17 B of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act to find out whether the WHO IMPACT definition is way off the definitions for Misbranded and Spurious drugs as indicated in the above Act.

“Section 17. Misbranded drugs – For the purposes of this Chapter, a drug shall be deemed to be misbranded –

(a) If it is so coloured, coated, powdered or polished that damage is concealed or if it is made to appear of better or greater therapeutic value than it really is; or

(b) If it is not labelled in the prescribed manner ; or

(c) If its label or container or anything accompanying the drug bears any statement, design or device which makes any false claim for the drug or which is false or misleading in any particular.”

Does Section 17 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 answer the ‘concern 1’ above?

“Section 17B. Spurious drugs – For the purposes of this Chapter, a drug shall be deemed to be spurious

(a) If it is manufactured under a name which belongs to another drug; or

(b) If it is an imitation of, or is a substitute for, another drug or resembles another drug in a manner likely to deceive or bears upon it or upon its label or container the name of another drug unless it is plainly and conspicuously marked so as to reveal its true character and its lack of identity with such other drug; or

(c) If the label or container bears the name of an individual or company purporting to be the manufacturer of the drug, which individual or company is fictitious or does not exist; or

(d) If it has been substituted wholly or in part by another drug or substance; or

(e) If it purports to be the product of a manufacturer of whom it is not truly a product.”

Does Section 17B of the Drugs and Cosmetics, 1940 Act answer the ‘concern 2′ above?

The ‘concern 3’ above deals with shifting the ‘burden of proof’ with replacement of the words ‘fraudulent and deliberate’ by ‘false representation’. Many legal experts opine that this change will only mean that “criminal intent (fraudulent and deliberate) shall be considered during the legal procedures for the purpose of sanctions.”

What could then possibly be the reasons for opposing the revised WHO IMPACT definition of Counterfeit Drugs in India, especially when we have similar definition in place in our own Drugs and cosmetics Act, 1940? Does it make sense for the Government to reinvent the wheel? Who knows?

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.

Biosimilar Drugs -A raging scientific debate with mounting global commercial interest

Posted on by
Reply
On December 11, 2008, Reuters reported that two days after Merck & Co. announced a major push into generic versions of biotechnology medicines, Eli Lilly & Co. signaled similar aspirations. This report raised many eyebrows in the global pharmaceutical industry, in the midst of a raging scientific debate on this issue. Be that as it may, many felt that this announcement ushered in the beginning of a new era. An era of intense future competition with Biosimilar drugs in the world market with immense commercial interest.Globally, the scenario for generic versions of biotechnology medicines, which are called Biosimilars, Biogenerics or follow-on Biologics, started heating up when Merck announced that the company expects to have atleast 5 follow-on biologics in the late stage development by 2012. The announcement of both Merck and Eli Lilly surprised many, as the largest pharmaceutical market of the world – the U.S.A is yet to approve the regulatory pathway for generic biologic medicines. In the developed world, European Union (EU) has taken a lead towards this direction by already having a system in place for regulatory approval of Biosimilar drugs in 2003.What then prompts the research based global pharmaceutical companies like Merck and Eli Lilly to step into the arena of Biosimilar medicines? Is it gradual drying up research pipeline together with skyrocketing cost of global R&D initiatives?

The future business potential of Biosimilar medicines:

Currently, over 150 different biologic medicines are available in the Global Pharmaceutical market. However, the low cost Biosimilar drugs are available in just around 11 countries of the world, India being one of them. Supporters of Biosimilar medicines are indeed swelling as time passes by. At present, the key global players are Sandoz (Novartis), Teva, BioPartners, BioGenerix (Ratiopharm) and Bioceuticals (Stada). This market is expected to develop slowly because of regulatory hurdles in the major countries of the world.

Very recently, the EU has approved Sandoz’s (Novartis) Filgrastim (Neupogen brand of Amgen), which is prescribed for the treatment of Neutropenia. With Filgrastim, Sandoz will now have 3 Biosimilar products in its portfolio.

Raging debate on Biosimilar Drugs still continues:

The debate is centered on the argument that like small chemical molecules is it possible to replicate large biological molecule of the innovator? It is widely believed that a protein cannot be absolutely replicated. How could possibly then Biosimilar drugs be considered equivalent to the original product by a regulator and marketing approval be granted to them without full scale clinical trials ignoring safety concerns of the patients? In favor of this argument some refer to the problem of red cell aplasia that affected many patients administering Johnson & Johnson’s Exprex (Epoetin) after only a minor change made in its manufacturing procedure.

Hurdles to cross for future Market entry of Biosimilar Drugs:

Emergence of second generation branded biosimilar products such as PEGylated products Pegasys and PegIntron (peginterferon alpha) and Neulasta (pegfilgrastim), and insulin analogs etc. have the potential to reduce the market size for first generation Biosimilar drugs creating significant entry barrier.

Even otherwise, the barriers to market entry of Biosimilar drugs are much higher than any small molecule generic drug. In the markets within EU, many companies face the challenge of higher development costs for biosimilar drugs because of stringent regulatory requirements and greater lead time for product development. Navigating through such a tough regulatory environment will demand a different type of skill sets from the generic companies not only in areas of clinical trials and pharmacovigilance, but also in areas of manufacturing and marketing. Consequently, the investment needed to take Biosimilar drugs from clinical trials to launch in the developed markets, will indeed be quite significant.

Current Scenario in the U.S:

Recently in the U.S.A, the new, widely reported, biotechnology policy of President Barak Obama has become one of the most closely watched healthcare policy initiatives of the country. It is expected that such a policy will help facilitate regulatory approval process of Biosimilar drugs in the USA by end 2009. This new policy initiative could have a major impact on many biotech companies who will face new generic competition, rather quickly. On the other hand, it will prove to be a boon to the new entrants in this market like, Merck and Eli Lilly, besides the existing ones.

Global Market Potential of Biosimilar Drugs:

The biosimilar drug market in the world is estimated to be around U.S. $ 16 billion by 2011. Currently, off-patent biologic blockbusters including Erythropoietin offer an excellent commercial opportunity in this category of drugs. By 2013, about 10 branded biologics with a total turnover of around U.S. $ 15 billion will go off-patent.

Biosimilar Drugs in India:

Sales of biosimilar drugs in India are estimated to be around U.S. $ 4 billion by 2011.

Biosimilar drugs fall under high growth segment within Indian pharmaceutical Industry. Recombinant vaccines, erythropoietin, recombinant insulin, monoclonal antibody, interferon alpha, granulocyte cell stimulating factor like products are manufactured by a number of domestic biotech companies like Biocon, Panacea Biotech, Wockhardt, Emcure, Shantha Biotech, Bharat Biotech, Serum Institute of India, Dr. Reddy’s, Ranbaxy, etc. The ultimate objective of all these Indian companies, I am sure, will be to get regulatory approval of such products in the EU and then in the U.S. when the time comes.

It is worth mentioning here that to give a fillip to the Biotech Industry in India, the National Biotechnology Board was set up by the Government of India under the Ministry of Science and Technology in 1982 and the Department of Biotechnology (DBT) came into existence in 1986. The DBT now spends around US$ 200 million annually to develop biotech resources in the country and have been making reasonably good progress. The DBT is reported to have undertaken an initiative to prepare regulatory guidelines for Biosimilar Drugs, which is expected to conform to international quality and patients’ safety requirements.

The points to ponder with the Biosimilar Drugs in India:

It is, indeed, quite surprising that in India there is still no separate transparent and published guidelines for regulatory approval of Biosimilar drugs, although the Drug Controller General of India (DCGI) seems to have a different view in this matter. The Drugs and Cosmetics Acts of India have no separate provisions either, for Biosimilar Drugs. In a situation like this, we find that many Biosimilar Drugs are still getting regulatory approval in India.

Currently India supplies 30% by volume of the global requirements of generic drugs both in regulated and non-regulated markets. In the regulated markets like North America and EU, for small molecule generic products, Indian manufacturers conform to the global safety and efficacy standards by getting these products approved by the most stringent regulators of the world like, U.S. FDA, MHRA (Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency) etc. The very fact that none of the Biosimilar drugs developed in India could get approval in the EU as yet, may well suggest that the stringent regulatory requirements for both efficacy and patients’ safety followed in the EU for Biosimilar drugs, could not be met by the Indian manufacturers, as yet. The question, therefore, comes to my mind whether the Biosimilar drugs manufactured in India conform to international quality and safety standards? If not, who will address the safety concerns of the patients who are or will be administering these medicines?

Such a concern gets vindicated by widely reported serious quality problems, detected by the drug regulatory authorities, at some large and well known Biosimilar drugs manufacturing units in India and also from the condition of some vaccine manufacturing units in our country.

India needs to manufacture the world class Biosimilar drugs conforming to the highest efficacy and patients’ safety standards, just the way Indian pharmaceutical manufacturers have demonstrated with ‘made in India’ generic drugs, the world over. The Indian drug regulatory authority should now take some important initiative with the publication of world class Biosimilar drugs regulatory approval guidelines, may be following the similar process as what we see in the EU.

Currently, experts from India are participating towards preparation of ‘WHO Guidelines’ for Biosimilar Drugs. The progress made towards this direction is yet to be ascertained. Simultaneously, the DBT is reported to have under taken an independent initiative to prepare similar guidelines, the progress of which is also yet to be known.

Before other developed markets open up for Biosimilar drugs, if India can align itself with its own world class regulatory standards for the same, yet another significant export opportunity could be created for the country, competing with the best performers of the world in this category.

Meanwhile, it will only be good to know that like many other initiatives, India has taken one more important initiative to address this important issue, for the sake of humanity. As the existing process of granting regulatory approval for Biosimilar drugs continues in India, the lurking fear towards patients’ safety with such drugs will remain unabated with a large majority of experts in this field.

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.

On ‘Patent Linkage’ – a rational argument on an emotive debate

Posted on by
Reply
WTO TRIPS Article 28.1a says that the member countries agree to ensure exclusive rights to patent holder for a specific time period. In case of India, like most other countries, this time period is for 20 years.During this period the member countries agree to prevent third parties from making, using, offering for sale the patented product without the owner’s consent.In India, during last twelve months, at least 4 patents were infringed by the local generic companies. All these cases are currently under litigation. No one at this stage will possibly be able to hazard a guess as to when will these cases ultimately get resolved. If it takes another two to three years to get the final verdict from the honourable High Courts, the revenue of the innovator companies who have already launched their patented products in India will get shaved off, at least for this period, leaving a very adverse commercial impact on them. There is a theoretical possibility that it may take even more time for the honourable High Courts to resolve these cases and during the remaining period of limited patent life of these products the cases may not get resolved, at all.

Moreover, in India there is no known strong deterrent for patent infringement. In absence of which, the opportunity to make significant commercial gain through patent infringement, on the pretext of extending benefits to patients could indeed be, many a times, difficult to resist. Media reports that the National Pharmaceutical Pricing Authority (NPPA) has raised huge demand in crores of rupees for overcharging the common man, flouting the drug pricing norms, by some of these large companies involved in patent infringement litigations, vindicates the point of their basic overall intention of significant commercial gain over extending pricing benefits to the patients. The moot question that follows is who is responsible to ensure the sanctity of the product patent system in India?

The prevailing situation warrants a strong regulatory system which could prohibit marketing approval of generic equivalents of patented molecules during their patent period.

The question that is often raised in this context is who exactly be held responsible for implementation of such a system in our country? While addressing this question one should realize that it is the Government in its entirety and not just the Patent offices or any particular ministry or ministries of the Governments is bound by the WTO TRIPS Agreement. Therefore, it is justifiably the responsibility of all Government departments/ministries to ensure that TRIPS obligations of the Government on proper enforcement of patent are properly met.

The process of granting marketing approval for patented molecules, in general, rests on the Ministry of Health (MoH) of WTO member states. Thus for WTO member states to meet TRIPS obligations effective communication between the MoH and the Patent offices of the country is absolutely essential. Such a system will help prevent approval of generic versions of patented molecules before expiration of the product patents.

Establishing this communication process will ensure that one department/ministry of the Government (say DCGI) does not impair the efforts of another Government department/ministry (say IPOs) to provide effective intellectual property protection as articulated in Article 28.1 of the WTO TRIPS Agreement.

This system will ensure that Health Regulatory Authorities do not, even unintentionally, undermine the commitment of the Government to conform to the TRIPS Agreement.

My experience of the last three years of post product patent regime in India prompts the need for establishing a “Patent Linkage” system without further delay, not only for effective patent protection but also to encourage innovators to get more involved and engaged in the process of innovation in India.

Will India be the unique country if such a system of “Patent Linkage” is put in place? The answer is obviously ‘no’.

In the largest market of the global pharmaceutical industry, the USA, such a system exists. US FDA maintains a listing of pharmaceutical products known as the ‘Orange Book’. The soft copy of the ‘Orange Book’ is also available through internet at: http:/www.fda.gov/cder/ob/.

US FDA does not authorize marketing approval of generic versions of patented molecules listed in the ‘Orange Book’.

What then happens in the second largest market of the global pharmaceutical industry, the European Union (EU)? In the EU, sanctity of the product patent is ensured by granting 10/11 years data exclusivity. Thus, if any company intends to introduce a generic version of a patented molecule, it will have to generate its own sets of entire regulatory data through a very long and expensive process, which may take several years. Even after spending huge amount money and time towards generation of their own clinical data, there is no guarantee that such companies will be able to market the product without getting involved into expensive patent infringement litigation. Thus in the EU, the deterrent to make such an ambitious attempt is humongous.

Various types of ‘Patent Linkage’ system also exists in Australia, Canada, Mexico, Jordan, UAE, Singapore, China etc. While putting in place of such a system is reportedly in progress in countries like, Chile, Dominican Republic – Central America, Bahrain, Morocco, Oman etc.

To conclude, in my view, when the Government of India is the sole authority to grant product patents in India, it is the responsibility of the same Government to protect those patents through its Health Regulatory System i.e. DCGI’s office. I reckon, such a system already exists in India. The procedure of (‘Patent Linkage’) checking the patent status before granting marketing approval already exists in FORM 44, which is an application to the DCGI for grant of permission to import or manufacture a New Drug or to undertake clinical trial in India. In the first page of FORM 44 (available in the website of the DCGI) under ‘Particulars of New Drug’ in point 8, it seeks details of the ‘Patent Status of the drug’. Can this information be not effectively utilized to justifiably deny marketing approval of a generic version of a patented molecule during its patent life in India? If not, it is difficult to make out what purpose will the DCGI utilize this information for?

Thus in my view, the procedure to be followed for ‘Patent Linkage’ in India is already in place. There is hardly any need to reinvent this wheel either. The Health Regulatory Authority of India should now make this procedure work effectively in its obligation to adhere to the commitment of the national Government to honour Article 21.1 of WTO TRIPS Agreement.

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.

National Rural Health Mission (NRHM), a much hyped public healthcare initiative – has it delivered since its inception in 2005?

Posted on by
Reply

National Rural Health Mission (NRHM), a very ambitious and noble initiative for the rural population of India was launched by the Government of India on April 12, 2005. The interim budget allocation of NRHM for the year 2009–10 has been increased to Rs. 12,070 crore. The primary purpose of NRHM, as announced by the Government, was to improve access to quality healthcare for the poor population of 18 states, to start with, of rural India.

Along with such a commendable initiative, the Government declared an increase in its spending towards public health from mere 0.9% to 2–3% of the GDP over a five year period. This decision was in line with the well articulated prime focus of the Government on public health and education.

During the launch of NRHM, the Health Minister of India announced that the nation would see the results of these efforts in three years time.

Three years are over now. Let us, therefore, have a look at the key achievement areas of this ambitious scheme for the budget year 2008-09, as announced by the Finance Minister recently in his interim budget speech for 2009–10.

The performance areas were highlighted as follows:

• 462,000 Associated Social Health Activists were trained
• 177,924 villages have sanitation committees functional
• 323 district hospitals have been taken for up gradation

Against such a soft performance parameters of the Government, let us see some hard facts, which are real indicators of performance of NRHM. A report on the recent study done by Chronic Care Foundation indicates that in India about 86% of highly populated rural districts still do not have provisions for basic diagnostic tests for chronic ailments.

The study also highlights that in rural areas, as a percentage of total expenses, out of pocket healthcare costs are more than the urban areas, with hospitalization expenses contributing the most to the total costs. In many rural areas the healthcare costs have been reported to be as high as around 80% of the total expenses. Such a high out of pocket expenses have mainly been attributed to the lack of facilities in these rural areas, requiring patients to travel to distant areas for medical treatment. It was also reported that even in rural areas due to inefficient and inadequate services at the Government healthcare units, there has been a very high dependence on more expensive private healthcare facilities.

After almost four years from the inception of NRHM, if this is the state of affairs for rural public healthcare, the obvious questions which come to my mind are as follows:

• Where is the huge money allocated for NRHM going?
• Who is or are accountable for such a poor performance of this great scheme?

In my opinion, to make NRHM work satisfactorily the Government should outline, decide and announce the key success parameters for performance evaluation of the scheme. This is to be done disclosing the names and designations of the responsible senior Government officials who will be held accountable for the success or failure to deliver the deliverables. All these details should be uploaded on to the website of the Ministry of Health for public scrutiny, at least half yearly. With tax-payers money being utilised for this important and critical public health arena, no non-performance should escape attention and go unpunished.

Moreover, with the help of experts, the Government should decide, which elements of each identified success parameters the Government will be able to deliver better with its own internal resources and which are those areas where the Government should outsource.

Such an approach when worked out in great details will be able to ensure whether through NHRM the country is making progress to improve access to quality healthcare for a vast majority of its rural population. Otherwise this scheme may well be treated just as one of those which failed to deliver and vanished in the oblivion.

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.

‘Orphan Drugs’ for ‘Orphan Diseases’ – is ‘Open Source Drug Discovery (OSDD)’ platform for discovery research the way forward?

Posted on by
Reply
To meet the unmet needs of common and dreaded diseases intensive R&D activities are being undertaken by the Pharmaceutical Industry, the world over. At the same time, a percentage of human population, however small, also suffers from some rare diseases, for which there are no approved medical treatments even in the twenty first century, for the rich and poor alike.These rare diseases are also termed as ‘orphan diseases’, which are often chronic, progressive, degenerative, life-threatening or disabling. Many patients suffering from such rare diseases are denied their right to get their ailments effectively treated.It is indeed heartening to note that European Organization for Rare Diseases (EURORDIS) and National Alliances announced February 29, 2008 as the first ‘Rare Disease day’. Thereafter, the last day of February has been designated as ‘Rare Disease Day’ worldwide to call attention to the public health issues associated with rare diseases, which have been reported to affect around 30 million patients around the world.

People with rare diseases remain a medically underserved population even in a developed country. We can then well imagine the plight of such patients in India. The ‘Rare Disease Day’ is intended to bring together the patients and families with rare diseases to discuss the need for greater awareness, more research, and better access to diagnosis and treatment. I am not sure how various authorities, including our Government, are deliberating on this healthcare issue.

People suffering from ‘orphan diseases’ often face huge challenges compared to more common diseases. These include delay in getting an accurate diagnosis, few treatment options and difficulty finding medical experts. Many such rare diseases have no approved treatment. Moreover, treatments for ‘orphan diseases’ tend to be in most cases more expensive than treatments for more common diseases.

This year, the “Rare Disease Day” will be observed in India also, on February 28, though these are not very much talked about in our country, nor is there any proper definition in place for such diseases, as yet.

The drugs meant for treating ‘orphan diseases’ have been very appropriately termed as ‘orphan drugs’, mainly due to commercial reasons, as such drugs will be used on much fewer patients with commensurate return on investments towards R&D. Thus spending expensive R&D resources toward such drugs may not make sound commercial sense.

To address this need, in 1983, the Orphan Drug Act was passed by the Congress in the USA to extend financial incentives for companies to develop treatments for rare diseases. Since then, nearly 330 ‘orphan drugs’ and biologics have been approved by the U.S. FDA, which estimates that from 11 to 14 million Americans would benefit from these ‘orphan drugs’. However, despite such commendable measures taken by the US FDA, around 15 million Americans still leave with such ‘orphan diseases’ for which there is no approved treatment.

It is interesting to note that some of these ‘orphan diseases’ are now being diagnosed in India, as well. As India takes rapid strides in medical science, more of such ‘orphan diseases’ are likely to be known in our country.

Thus the moot question is how does India address this issue with pro-active measures? In the USA, even by giving adequate financial incentives, this problem could not be effectively addressed for commercial reasons.

In my view, one of the ways to properly address this issue is to follow the model of our very own the Council of Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR) for an ‘Open Source Drug Discovery’ (OSDD) program with global partnerships, wherever required. This initiative has been pioneered by the well known scientist and Director General of CSIR Dr. Samir Brahmachari. Andrew Witty, the CEO of GlaxoSmithKline also had mooted a similar idea in another context in not too distant past.

Therefore, to address the issue of ‘orphan diseases’, in my opinion, the OSDD model with partnerships between private, public and academia will not only prove to be a viable and more practical model to discover ‘orphan drugs’, but will also help India to effectively contribute to this important global issue – not just by observing the ‘Rare Diseases Day’ on February 28 or 29, each year.

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.