Tag Archives: Ray

‘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.

Allegation of ‘Marketing Malpractices’ in the pharmaceutical Industry of India has assumed a huge proportion– who will ‘bell the cat’?

Posted on by
Reply
Sometime back, in its January – March, 2004 issue, ‘Indian Journal of Medical Ethics’ (IJME)in context of marketing practices for ethical pharmaceutical products in India commented:“If the one who decides, does not pay and the one who pays, does not decide and if the one who decides is ‘paid’, will truth stand any chance?”Three year after, in 2007 the situation remained unchanged when IJME (April – June 2007 edition) once again reported:

“Misleading information, incentives, unethical trade practices were identified as methods to increase the prescription and sales of drugs. Medical Representatives provide incomplete medical information to influence prescribing practices; they also offer incentives including conference sponsorship. Doctors may also demand incentives, as when doctors’ associations threaten to boycott companies that do not comply with their demands for sponsorship.”

This situation is not limited to India alone. It has been reported from across the world. ‘The New England Journal of Medicine’, April 26, 2007 reported that virtually, all doctors in the US take freebies from drug companies, and a third take money for lecturing, and signing patients up for trials. The study conducted on 3167 physicians in six specialities (anaesthesiology, cardiology, family practice, general surgery, internal medicine and paediatrics) reported that 94% of the physicians had ‘some type of relationship with the pharmaceutical industry’, and 83% of these relationships involved receiving food at the workplace and 78% receiving free drug samples. 35% of the physicians received re-imbursement for cost associated with professional meetings or continuing medical education (CME). And the more influential a doctor was, the greater the likelihood that he or she would be benefiting from a drug company’s largess.

Even our own ‘The Times of India’ reported the following on December 15, 2008:

1. “The more drugs a doctor prescribes of a company, greater the chances of him or her winning a
car, a high-end fridge or TV set.”

2. “Also, drug companies dole out free trips with family to exotic destinations like Turkey or Kenya.”

3. “In the West, unethical marketing practices attract stiff penalties.”

4. “In India, there are only vague assurances of self-regulation by the drug industry and reliance on
doctors’ ethics.”

Such issues are not related only to physicians. ‘Scrip’ dated February 6, 2009 published an article titled: “marketing malpractices: an unnecessary burden to bear”. The article commented:

“Marketing practices that seem to be a throwback to a different age continue to haunt the industry. Over the past few months, some truly large sums have been used to resolve allegations in the US of marketing and promotional malpractice by various companies. These were usually involving the promotion of off-label uses for medicines. One can only hope that lessons have been learnt and the industry moves on.”

“As the sums involved in settling these cases of marketing malpractices have become progressively larger, and if companies do not become careful even now, such incidents will not only affect their reputation but financial performance too.”

Huge settlement sums involved in such ‘federal misdemeanour’ cases could act as a reasonably strong deterrent in the USA. However, in India, even the written complaints to the Drug Controller General of India (DCGI) about ‘off label’ promotion of drugs attracts no such punitive measure. Marketing malpractices in India seems to have now become a routine, as it were. All stakeholders, in principle, agree that it should stop. But in absence of any strong deterrent, like in the USA, will it remain just as another wishful thinking?

Both the Government and the industry talk about ‘self regulation’ to address this issue. This is indeed a very pragmatic thought. A part of the industry already has such a self regulation system in place. But the moot question that comes in everybody’s mind is it working, effectively?

To effectively address this issue should the entire pharmaceutical industry in India together not form a self regulatory body in line with “Consumer complaint council” of “The Advertising Standards Council of India”, as was created by the Fast Moving Consumer Goods (FMCG) industry? The decisions taken by the ‘pharma council’ against each complaint of marketing malpractice should be disseminated to all concerned, to make the system robust and transparent…and in that process it will act as a strong deterrent too.

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.

Innovation, IPR and Indian Pharmaceutical Industry – a growth formula is brewing.

Posted on by
Reply
Innovate or perish:Many of us expect that ‘tomorrow’ will be a ‘mega today’ and prefer to run our business more or less the same way, as what we are doing today. At the same time the global market keeps us sending, in very small measures though, but definite and continuous signals of change. As we move on, we realize that ‘tomorrow’ will not be a ‘mega today’, just as ‘today’ is not a ‘mega yesterday’. To meet such challenge of change squarely and realistically, we need to embrace a culture of ‘continuous innovation’.Therefore, the name of the game, while competing within the globalised economy is “continuous innovation”. An innovation, as we know, is more than a novel idea. It is, in fact, the process of translating the novel idea into reality.

Like other industries, the pharmaceutical industry in India will also have to innovate with cutting edge ideas, convert them to innovative and implementable business models, which in turn would help these companies to remain competitive in the market place. The innovation, which I am talking about, extends beyond Intellectual Property Rights (IPR).

While innovation is an absolute must to remain and grow the business, having patented products and marketing these brands effectively are desirable and not a ‘must do’ in the pharmaceutical industry of India.

Many would like to ‘stick to knitting’ and innovate:

Indian Pharmaceutical Industry is now an internationally acclaimed player in process development, contract research, manufacturing and domestic marketing skills. The Government of India created this environment for the industry through amendments of the Indian Patents Act 1970.

During post product patent regime in India, there is no dire need for the entire domestic industry to shift its focus from world class process development skills to new molecule development skill. On the contrary, the strengths acquired by the domestic industry in such skill sets should be further honed, to utilize benefits from opportunities that arise out of basic R&D processes. Some of these are collaborative activities with the multinational companies (MNCs) to create a win-win situation in areas like, contract research, clinical development, contract manufacturing and domestic marketing of in-licensed products.

The domestic pharmaceutical industry should therefore adopt strategies like manufacturing off patent products, like recent collaboration between Aurobindo Pharma and Pfizer, Jubilant Organosys with French company Guerbet, for distribution of its nuclear medicine products in Europe. ‘Financial Express’ dated March 13, 2009 reported “Eli Lily seeks partner for Indian TB initiatives.

Such opportunities will keep on coming, may be more frequently and more in number, especially when global innovator companies take more interest in the generic pharmaceutical business, like, Novartis, Daiichi Sankyo, GlaxoSmithKline, Sanofi Aventis etc.

To grab such opportunities, the strategy of ‘stick to the knitting’ with continuous innovation is expected to help the domestic pharmaceutical companies immensely.

IPR regime – emerging opportunities:

Discovery Research:

While above approach will help many small and medium sector enterprises, many large pharmaceutical companies and research boutiques in India are investing significantly to discover New Molecular Entities (NMEs). It has been reported that by 2011, at least two Indian pharmaceutical companies are planning to launch their NMEs.

Biotech Research:

Research in the field of Biotechnology is rapidly evolving, especially in the areas of diagnostics, vaccines, cellular and molecular biology. It is heartening to note that for doing stem cell research National Institute of Health, USA, identified Reliance Life Sciences in Mumbai and the National Institute of Biological sciences in Bangalore to receive state funding from the USA. Both these two organizations entered into contracts to supply embryonic stem cells to the US based researchers. Moreover, in the field of ‘Biometrics’ raw clinical data are now being transmitted to the specialists in India for their scientific evaluation.

It has been reported that in the developing countries of the world malaria afflicts about 300-500 million population and kills 1-3 million of them. Malaria also allows some fatal genetic illnesses, like sickle cell anaemia to thrive in the gene pool. Hence a vaccine developed for this disease through Indian biotech initiatives, would indeed be a great boon for the developing countries of the world.

Industry – Academia Collaboration:

In the Western countries, close collaboration exists between the industry and academic institutes in the field of Pharmaceutical Research. Such type of collaboration has now started developing in India too, where Council of Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR) is playing major role.

An effective collaboration between the pharmaceutical industry and the academia will ensure productive use of research talents where both the parties will draw benefits. The research done by the CSIR, Indian Institute of Technology (IITs), Indian Institute of Science and various universities is expected to throw open new avenues of collaboration and partnership between industry and Academia.

Benefits of Technology Transfer and increased Foreign Direct Investment (FDI):

The new product patent regime is also expected to facilitate flow of technology and foreign direct investment in India with adequate patent enforcement mechanism being put in place. Inadequate patent and regulatory data protection are considered by the developed nations as the key barriers, which restrict the flow of both technology and foreign investments.

In these areas, India mainly competes with China and Brazil, besides other emerging markets. Degree of patent and regulatory data protection in each of these countries will eventually decide who will emerge as a winner in these fields.

The issue of ‘Access to New Innovative Patented Drugs’:

Innovative pharmaceutical products patented in India will facilitate access to the latest modern medicines to Indian population. Such medicines will help to meet the unmet needs of the ailing population. Many multinational companies like, Merck, GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) have already announced a differential pricing mechanism for such medicines in the developing countries.

Moreover, to improve access of such medicines to the common man, the Government of India should have robust plan to purchase these medicines, at a negotiated price, for supply to Government Healthcare Units

Improving ‘Access to affordable modern medicines’ – a challenge to the nation

There are three key elements to improve access to affordable medicines to a vast majority (650 million) of Indian population:

1. Healthcare infrastructure and delivery
2. Healthcare financing
3. Procurement price of these medicines at the Government Healthcare units

Price of patented products will not have any impact on existing medicines available in the market. However, the reality is, price regulation in some form will continue to play a key role in India. The long overdue new Drug Policy of India is now expected to come only after the new Government takes charge, post General Election of the country. The new policy is expected to articulate the details on this important subject both for patented and generic medicines, in India.

A determined and focused approach of the Government on the above three elements would effectively address the key healthcare issues of India.

Small Scale Enterprises in India – expecting large scale consolidation:

In India over 70% of the small-scale units, within the pharmaceutical industry, currently operate as contract manufacturers, either for the domestic or multinational companies. These small scale units with their low operating cost ,make the contract sourcing model an attractive proposition. Many of these small scale enterprises, are mostly catering to the export business in non-regulated markets.

The demand for high quality standard by the drug regulatory authorities of various countries is fast increasing. It is, therefore, essential for these units to make significant investments to qualify for such stringent quality requirements. Some units would be able to invest enough to meet such regulatory standards. However, the cost of production for those units, which will invest towards facility up gradation is expected to increase significantly, leading to fierce cut throat competition. In a situation like this, we can expect to witness a large scale consolidation process within the industry.

Intense competition from China – cannot be ignored:

Globalisation of the markets could lead to significant dumping of products in different countries. Such a situation may adversely affect the cash flow of business, making the domestic industry highly vulnerable. Currently, Indian manufacturers are facing intense competition from China, in Pharmaceutical Intermediates (PI) and Active Pharmaceutical Ingredient (API) segments. This is mainly because China has a much better economies of scale in manufacturing, which gives them a pricing edge over their Indian counterparts.

PI and he API manufacturers in the small scale enterprise segments of India have already been very adversely impacted, leading to closure of many units in various states like, Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka and Gujarat.

Conclusion:

The issue of a robust world class patent regime in India has sparked off an intense debate with a heavy dose of acrimony. The key areas of concern of various stakeholders are as follows:

1. General public: inadequate access of affordable modern medicine to the common man
2. Domestic generic industry: overall industry growth and to some extent its survival
3. The Government of India: combination of 1&2

After many years of tough resistance mainly from the domestic generic pharmaceutical industry, in January 1, 2005, India re-entered into the pharmaceutical product patent regime. In this article, I have tried to give a snapshot of this new regime, for a quick reading.

Despite tough competition from China and increased possibility of consolidation within small scale pharmaceutical units, overall emerging scenario in India is indeed encouraging. Imbibing innovation culture and with the opportunities available in the new IPR regime, Indian pharmaceutical industry, I believe, will be able to catapult itself to newer heights of global success.

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.