Tag Archives: Safety

Marketing Off-label Use of Drugs: A Path Much Abused?

Posted on by
Reply

As many would know, prescribing any medicine for disease conditions that are not approved by the drug approving authorities while granting its marketing approval, is generally termed as ‘off-label’ use of drugs.

It is also a usual practice in most of the regulated markets of the world that once the drug regulators give marketing approval of a medicine, which is indication-specific, physicians are free to prescribe these as they deem necessary. However, the drug manufacturers can seek prescription support from the doctors only for the indications as approved by the appropriate government authorities.

Even the USFDA had articulated, “the best way to address any concerns that the information about those (off-label) uses is not reaching medical practitioners is to get those uses in the labeling. We believe that the risks of allowing drug companies to distribute journal articles and other information about off label uses far outweigh any benefits.”        

Since long, most of the drug regulators across the world, including the Drug Controller General of India (DCGI) have prohibited the sales promotion for unapproved uses of drugs to doctors. Nevertheless, the practice continues ignoring its serious consequences.

Monitoring of ‘off-label’ use is challenging: 

Monitoring of off-label use of medicines is quite challenging too by the drug regulators, especially in India, where post marketing surveillance is generally just on paper.

In this regard, a recent research study that I shall refer to below in this article, has quite appropriately suggested, “Future electronic health records should be designed to enable post market surveillance of treatment indications and treatment outcomes to monitor the safety of on and off-label uses of drugs.”

As India intends to move towards the ‘Digital’ space, this suggestion would be quite implementable by the DCGI, as the ‘Smart Cities’ start coming up.

Some examples of extensive off-label usages: 

According to the study done by a team of experts in medical information – Iodine, using the top drugs by number of monthly prescriptions, the following is a list of 4 medications with surprising off-label uses:

Drug Approved Indication Off-label Indication
Abilify (Aripiprazole) Schizophrenia, Bipolar Disorder, Major Depressive Disorder (adjunctive), Autism-related Irritability, Agitation associated with Schizophrenia or Bipolar Mania, other Insomnia
Lyrica (Pregabalin) Management of: neuropathic pain associated with diabetic peripheral neuropathy, post herpetic neuralgia, fibromyalgia, neuropathic pain associated with spinal cord injury; adult patients with partial onset seizures (adjunctive) Anxiety
Namenda (Memantine) Moderate to severe dementia of the Alzheimer’s type ADHD, OCD
Synthroid (Levothyroxine) Low thyroid hormone levels, some types of goiters, management some types of thyroid cancers Depression

Off-label use and increasing risks of drug safety: 

In its November 02, 2015 online issue, JAMA Internal Medicine published an article titled, “Association of Off-Label Drug Use and Adverse Drug Events (ADE) in an Adult Population.” The objective of this study was to monitor and evaluate off-label use of prescription drugs and its effect on ADEs in an adult population.

This particular study assumes importance, as off-label use of prescription drugs without strong scientific evidence has been identified as an important contributor to preventable Adverse Drug Events (ADEs), especially in children. However, despite concerns in this regard, no systematic investigation on the effects of off-label drug use in adult populations is being performed, regularly.

The detail analysis of this study reveals that not only is the benefit of off-label prescription is uncertain, but the risks of ADEs could make the ‘risk-benefit ratio’ quite unfavorable. So much so that in a large number of cases, no drug treatment will be a much better option.

According to the authors, the risk for ADEs grew as the number of prescription drugs the patient used increased. For example, patients using eight or more drugs had more than a 5-fold increased risk for ADEs compared with patients who used one to two drugs.

The study involving 46,021 adult patients, receiving 151,305 prescriptions between January 2005 and December 2009 was done in Canada. Of those prescriptions, more than 10 percent were prescribed for off-label use. Interestingly, out of that group, more than 80 percent prescriptions were for off-label uses without any robust scientific evidence supporting the use.

Based on the findings the researchers concluded that off-label use of prescription drugs is associated with ADEs.

The article suggested:

  • Caution should be exercised in prescribing drugs for off-label uses that lack strong scientific evidence.
  • Future electronic health records should be designed to enable post market surveillance of treatment indications and treatment outcomes to monitor the safety of on and off-label uses of drugs.

Pharma industry strongly opposes off-label use, when it suits them:

Interestingly, pharma industry vehemently opposes off-label use of drugs, when it suits them.

To give just a couple of examples, recently a new law that permits prescribing of drugs for off-label uses in France has reportedly been strongly opposed by the pharmaceutical industry in Europe.

Pharma trade associations argue, “the above move of France is directly in opposition to European Union’s laws that prohibit member states from supporting off-label use for economic purposes, and is a trend that undermines the current regulatory framework and could put patients’ health at risk.”

Besides France, they have also submitted a complaint against Italy to the European Commission over the country’s new off-label rules.

Common methods followed for off-label marketing:

The other side of the story is that, reportedly many pharma companies continue promoting off-label uses of drugs aggressively, for significant commercial gains.

According to ‘The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) – a federal agency within the United States Department of Health and Human Services, some of the off-label drug promotion methods of the pharmaceutical companies are as follows:

• Paying incentives to sales representatives based on sales for off-label use

• Paying kickbacks to physicians to prescribe drugs for off-label use

• Disseminating misleading posters promoting off-label use

• Paying physicians:

- To pretend to be the authors of articles about off-label uses when the articles were actually written by manufacturers’ agents

- To serve as members of “advisory boards” promoting off-label use

- To travel to resort locations to listen to promotions about off-label use

- To give promotional lectures in favor of off-label use to fellow practitioners

• Publicizing studies showing efficacy of off-label uses, while suppressing studies showing no efficacy.

Even the Uniform Code of Pharmaceutical Marketing Practices (UCPMP) of the Government of India does not allow such sales and marketing practices. But these all continue to happen, unabatedly.

A path much abused?

Although most of the drug companies publicly advocate self regulation to avoid unethical marketing practices, the situation on the ground is much different, across the world. 

The following are just a few examples of serious business consequences faced by some of the well-known global pharma and biotech majors, besides many others, from the United States Department of Justice, for alleged off-label promotion of drugs: 

  • On November 4, 2013, Johnson & Johnson (J&J) was asked to pay more than US$ 2.2 billion to resolve criminal and civil liability arising from allegations relating to the prescription drugs Risperdal, Invega and Natrecor, including promoting for uses not approved as safe and effective by the USFDA and payment of kickbacks to physicians and to the nation’s largest long-term care pharmacy provider.  
  • On July 30, 2013, Wyeth Pharmaceuticals Inc., a pharmaceutical company acquired by Pfizer, Inc. in 2009, agreed to pay US$490.9 million to resolve its criminal and civil liability arising from the unlawful marketing of the prescription drug Rapamune for uses not approved as safe and effective by the USFDA. 
  • On December 19, 2012, Amgen Inc. pleaded guilty and paid US$762 million to resolve criminal liability and false claims allegations.
  • On July 2, 2012 GlaxoSmithKline LLC (GSK) pleaded guilty and paid US$3 billion to resolve its criminal and civil liability arising from the company’s unlawful promotion of certain prescription drugs, its failure to report certain safety data, and its civil liability for alleged false price reporting practices. This resolution is the largest health care fraud settlement in the US history and the largest payment ever by a drug company, so far. 
  • On May 7, 2012, Abbott Laboratories Inc. pleaded guilty and agreed to pay US$1.5 billion to resolve its criminal and civil liability arising from the company’s unlawful promotion of the prescription drug Depakote for uses not approved as safe and effective by the USFDA.  This resolution is the second largest payment by a drug company and includes a criminal fine and forfeiture totaling US$700 million and civil settlements with the federal government and the states totaling US$800 million.  Abbott also was reportedly subjected to court-supervised probation and reporting obligations for Abbott’s CEO and Board of Directors.
  • On October 21, 2011, Pfizer Inc. agreed to pay US$14.5 million to resolve false claims allegations related to its marketing of the drug Detrol. 
  • On June 10, 2011, Novo Nordisk was asked to pay US$25 million to resolve allegations of off-label promotion of Novoseven.
  • On September 30, 2010, Novartis agreed to pay US$422.5 million to settle criminal and civil investigations into the marketing of the anti-seizure medicine Trileptal and five other drugs. The government accused Novartis of mislabeling, paying illegal kickbacks to health care professionals through speaker programs, advisory boards, entertainment, travel and meals. 

Hence, it appears that the path followed by many pharma players to inform the doctors about the judicious off-label use of drugs only in circumstances where approved treatments have failed, is being much abused. 

A conflict of interest? 

Many doctors believe that there is also a distinct upside for off-label use of drugs, as flexibility of a physician to prescribe drugs off-label offers important advantages too, especially in circumstances where approved treatments have failed. This is indeed true and indisputable.

However, the reality is, many pharma industry, in general, actively encourage off-label use of drugs for commercial benefits through expanded use of their respective brands.

Aggressive drug promotion for various off-label uses, reportedly being so widespread and indiscriminate, many physicians can’t even remember the approved indications of drugs. Hence, they do not necessarily go for off-label use only when approved treatments have failed.  In this context, on November 23, 2015, ‘The Wall Street Journal (WSJ)’ in an article titled, “Risk of Off-Label Uses for Prescription Drugs” reported as follows:

“A 2009 study published in the journal Pharmacoepidemiology and Drug Safety found that 1,199 physicians in a national survey were able to identify the FDA-approved indication of 22 drugs only about 55% of the time. The physicians surveyed included primary-care doctors and psychiatrists.” 

On the other hand, the patients generally expect that the prescribed drugs will be safe. They want to administer evidence based approved medicines. Some of them have even started expressing that these evidences must also be disclosed to them.

Hence, there seems to exist a clear conflict of interest in this matter between the patients, drug manufacturers and perhaps the doctors, as well.

Conclusion:

The magnitude of general off-label use of drugs is reportedly increasing and is likely to increase further, exposing patients to increased risks of ADEs.  Although the business consequences of getting engaged in this unwanted process indiscriminately could at times be quite adverse, in the balance of probability between slim chances of getting caught, and expected creamy return, many pharma players continue to feel that this risk is worth taking.

Therefore, the moot question that needs a pragmatic answer is, for patients’ safety, when the global and local pharma majors talk about prescriptions of only impeccable evidence based medicine, do they walk the talk?

By: Tapan J. Ray

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

 

Scandalizing Biosimilar Drugs With Safety Concerns

Posted on by
Reply

With the patent expiry of exorbitantly priced biologic medicines, introduction of biosimilar drugs are expected to improve their access to millions of patients across the world, saving billions of dollars in healthcare costs in the subsequent years. According to an article published in Forbes, it is estimated that the potential savings in the United States alone from just 11 biosimilar drugs over a period ranging from 2014 to 2024 could easily be U$250 billion.

However, the flip side of this much awaited development would make commensurate dent on the sales performance of original brand name biologics, now being marketed by the global pharma majors armed with patent monopoly rights.

Innovating hurdles to negate the impact:

Facing this stark reality, global innovators of biotech drugs allegedly want to fast germinate a strong apprehension in the minds of all concerned on the safety and replaceability of biosimilar drugs. Consequently, this would severely restrict the usage of this new class of products, sacrificing patients’ health interest.

To translate this grand plan into reality, garnering additional support from ten medical societies and a physicians’ group, the global players, which mostly hold various patents on biologics, reportedly urged the USFDA to require biosimilars to have distinct names from the original biologics, on the pretext that different names would make it easier for prescribers to distinguish between medicines that “may differ slightly” and also track adverse events and side effect reports that appear in patient records.

However, other stakeholders have negated this move, which is predominantly to make sure that no substitution of high priced original biologics takes place with the cheaper versions of equivalent biosimilars to save on drug costs.

Intense lobbying to push the envelope:

Interestingly, this intense lobbying initiative of big pharma to assign a distinct or different name for biosimilar drugs, if accepted by the USFDA, would provide a clear and cutting-edge commercial advantage to the concerned pharma and biotech majors, even much after their respective biologic drugs go off patent.

Thus, the above allegedly concerted move does not surprise many.

Mounting protests against industry move:

Biosimilar drug makers, on the other hand, have suggested to the USFDA to make biosimilars fall under the same International Non-Proprietary Name (INN) system, like all generic prescription drugs.  They believe that new names would create confusion and the physicians and pharmacists may face difficulties in ascertaining whether biosimilar drugs serve the same purpose with similar dosing and regimens.

The protest seems to have a snowballing effect. In July 2014, by a letter to the Commissioner Hamburg of USFDA, different groups representing pharmacy, labor unions, health insurance plans and others, have reportedly urged her not to go for different INNs for the original biologic and a biosimilar drug, for the same reason as cited above. The letter reinforces that the industry move, if accepted by the USFDA could increase the possibility of medication errors, besides adversely affecting the substitution required to bring down overall health care costs for high priced specialized biologics, thereby slowing down the uptake of biosimilars significantly.

Global pharma investors also raising voices in support of biosimilars:

Another similar and major development followed soon. A letter titled, “Investor Statement on Board Oversight of Biosimilar Issues”, written by a group of 19 institutional investors that manages about US$430 billion in assets, to the boards of several big pharma and biotech companies, flagged that some pharma majors have been scandalizing the safety concerns of biosimilar drugs. This is happening despite the fact that this class of drugs already has a well-established track record in Europe.

They emphasize that recent actions taken by some big pharma companies could raise concerns on the overall acceptance of biosimilar drugs, which would forestall any projected savings on that subject. They also reportedly expressed serious concern that shareholder interests could be adversely affected, if the pharma and biotech players pursue those policies that undermine corporate transparency and medical innovation.

The letter underscores, “Companies seeking to downplay the patient safety record of European biosimilars have also challenged the capacity of the FDA to promulgate rules and determine when biosimilars may be substituted for biologics.”

Among other points, the letter reiterates:

  • Though the important role of biologics in treating cancer, rheumatoid arthritis, anemia, multiple sclerosis and many other conditions is well recognized, the costs of these medicines are on an unsustainable trajectory, with some biologics costing as much 22 times more than other drugs. This critical issue seriously impedes patients’ access to biologics, as well as, acceptance by providers and insurance companies.
  • Biosimilars hold the promise of lowering costs of treating conditions for which biologics are indicated. At the same time, the recent adoption of a regulatory pathway to approval of biosimilars in the US market and the continued growth of biosimilars in the European Union, Japan, Canada, Australia and South Korea, pose a formidable business challenge for the companies that market patented biologic medicines.
  • Financial experts project that biosimilars too have the potential for significant market penetration and attractive returns on investments.
  • Assigning different INN would communicate to providers that the biosimilar is less effective, prompting them not to prescribe this class of medicines and making it difficult for the pharmacists to dispense too. Besides, different names could lead to prescribing errors.
  • In short, the boards of directors of the pharma and biotech majors were urged by these investors to use the following principles to guide their decision-making related to biosimilars:

-       Policy and educational information provided on biosimilars should be balanced, accurate and informed by the patient safety experience of biosimilars in the European Union and other biosimilar drug markets.

-       Lobbying expenditures for federal and state activities related to biosimilars should be fully disclosed and the boards should ensure that political activities are aligned with the interests of investors and other stakeholders.

-       Key information about any partnership or business deal related to biosimilars should be fully disclosed to investors, including information about the value, terms and duration of the deal.

The WHO proposal:

In this context it is worth recapitulating, the World Health Organization (WHO) that oversees the global INN system has held a number of meetings to resolve this issue. The WHO proposal suggests that the current system for choosing INNs to remain unchanged, but that a four-letter code would be attached at the end of every drug name. However, individual regulatory agencies in each country could choose whether to adopt such coding or not.

Let us wait to see what really pans out of this flexible WHO proposal on the subject.

Biosimilars go through stringent regulatory review:

It is important to note that the drug regulators carefully review biosimilars before giving marketing approval for any market, as these drugs must prove to be highly similar without any clinically meaningful differences from the original biologic molecules. The interchangeability between biosimilars and the original biologics must also be unquestionably demonstrated to be qualified for being substitutable at the pharmacy level without the need for intervention by a physician.

Thus, there does not seem to be any basis for different INN, other than to severely restrict competition from biosimilars.

12-year data exclusivity period for biologics – another hurdle created earlier:

Another barrier to early introduction of cheaper biosimilar drugs in the United States is the 12-year data exclusivity period for biologics.

On this issue GPhA – the generic drug makers’ group in the United States reportedly issued a statement, criticizing a paper of Biotechnology Industry Organization (BIO), saying:

“Market exclusivity acts as an absolute shield to their weak patents. Thus, from a practical perspective, extending market exclusivity beyond the Hatch-Waxman period would block the introduction of generic competition for almost 20 years, derailing any potential cost savings by Americans.”

The market potential of biosimilars:

A new report by Allied Market Research estimates that the global biosimilars market would reach US$35 billion by 2020 from the estimated US$1.3 billion in 2013. During the next four years, over 10 blockbuster biologic drugs clocking aggregated annual sales turnover of US $60 billion would go off patent in the United States and in Europe. Humira – a US$10 billion drug of Abbvie that loses patent protection in 2016 is at the top of list.

In tandem, facilitation of regulatory pathways of marketing approval for this class of drugs in many developed markets is expected to drive its growth momentum through greater market penetration and access.

Asia Pacific region is likely to emerge as the leader in the biosimilar drugs market, primarily due to heightened interest and activity of the local players. Collaboration between Mylan and Biocon to commercialize biosimilar version of trastuzumab of Roche in India and the approval of first biosimilar version of monoclonal antibody drug by Hospira in Europe are the encouraging indications.

High growth oncology and autoimmune disease areas are expected to attract more biosimilars developers, as many such biologics would go off patent during 2014 to 2019 period.

Monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) and erythropoietin would possibly be key to the growth drivers. Similarly, follitropins, interferons, and insulin biosimilars would emerge as high potential product segments over a period of time.

As we know, among the developed markets, Europe was the first to draft guidelines for approval of biosimilars in 2006. Consequently, the first biosimilars version of Granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) was introduced in the European Union under the regulatory guidance of European Medical Agency (EMA) in 2008. At present, there are three biosimilar versions of G-CSF available in the European market. Insulin biosimilars also show a good potential for the future.

India:

India is now well poised to encash on this opportunity, which I had deliberated in one of my earlier blog post titled, “Moving Up The Generic Pharma Value Chain”.

Current global usage of biosimilars:

Though regulatory pathways for biosimilar drugs are now in place in the United States, no biosimilar has yet been approved there. However, the US drug regulator has for the first time accepted an application for the approval of a biosimilar version of Neupogen (Filgrastim) of Amgen, which treats patients with low white blood cell counts. Sandoz has already been selling the biosimilar version of this drug in more than 40 countries outside the US.

According to the research organization ‘Pharmaceutical Product Development’, as on March 2013, at least 11 countries and the European Union (EU) approve, regulate and allow clinical trials of biosimilars. As of February 2012, the EU has approved at least 14 biosimilar medicines. The following table shows these countries by region:

Region

Countries
North America Canada
Europe E.U. (including U.K.)
Asia and Pacific China, India, Singapore, South Korea, Taiwan
Central and South America Argentina, Brazil, Mexico
Eastern Europe Russia, Turkey

Source: Pharmaceutical Product Development

Conclusion:

With the opening up of the United States for biosimilar drugs, the entire product class is expected to be catapulted to a high growth trajectory, provided of course no more allegedly concerted attempts are made to create regulatory hurdles on its path, as we move on. This is mainly because around 46 percent of the world biologic market as on 2010 was in the United States.

However, intense lobbying and power play against biosimilar or interchangeable biologics, allegedly sponsored by the big pharma, are acting as a barrier to this much awaited development solely to benefit the patients. Such activities also undermine attractiveness of investing in safer and more affordable interchangeable biologics.

It is indeed intriguing that all these are happening, despite the fact that the regulatory approval standards for biosimilars are very stringent, as each of these drugs:

  • Must be highly similar to the reference product
  • Cannot have clinically meaningful differences from the original ones
  • Must perform the same in any given patient
  • Would have the same risk associated with switching as the reference product

Thus, scandalizing biosimilar drugs by raising self-serving ‘safety concerns’ in an orchestrated manner, just to extend product life cycles of original biologics even beyond patent expiries, is indeed a very unfortunate development. In this process, the vested interests are creating a great commercial uncertainty for this new class of medicines in the global scenario.

Be that as it may, all these seemingly well synchronized moves against biosimilars, solely to protect business interest, pooh-poohing patients’ health interests, have once again caste a dark shadow on not so enviable image of the big pharma…without even an iota of doubt.

By: Tapan J. Ray

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

 

NDDS as New Drug: Good for Patients, Great for Pharma

Posted on by
Reply

The Ministry of Health of India has reportedly decided to amend Rule 122 (E) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945 to categorize the New Drug Delivery Systems (NDDS), including ‘Controlled Release (CR)’ or ‘Modified Release (MR)’ formulations, whether a copy of studied and approved drugs or a new one, as ‘New Drugs’.

After the amendment, all vaccines and recombinant DNA (r-DNA) derived drugs would also fall under this nomenclature. Accordingly, to obtain ‘Marketing Approval’, such formulations would be subjected to requisite studies, including ‘Clinical Trials (CT), as specified for ‘New Drugs’ under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act of India.

It has however been clarified though, that these applications will not be treated as Investigational New Drugs (IND) and the Central Drugs Standard Control Organization (CDSCO) shall prepare appropriate regulatory guidelines for all NDDS formulations.

The main reason for the amendment is possibly much late realization of CDSCO that such formulations are vastly different from each other with respect to both efficacy and toxicity.

Besides, it has been widely alleged that some pharma companies in India, mainly to hoodwink the Drug Price Control Orders (DPCO) in the past, used to switch over from ‘Immediate Release (IR)’ formulations to products with CR/MR technology of the same molecule. However, that loophole has since been plugged in DPCO 2013, creating almost a furore in the industry.

A long overdue decision for patients’ health safety:

As stated earlier, this is indeed a long overdue decision of the Indian drug regulatory policy makers, solely considering patients’ health interest.

The primary reason being, any NDDS formulation with CR/MR technology is designed to release the drug substance in a controlled manner with high precision to achieve desired efficacy and safety, quite unlike its IR equivalent, if available in the market. It is important to note that inappropriate release of the drug in any CR/MR formulation would result in lesser efficacy or increased toxicity, jeopardizing patients’ health.

Process followed by US-FDA for CR/MR formulations:

In the United States, for marketing approval of such products, FDA usually requires submission of New Drug Applications (NDAs) providing details based on the evidence of adequate drug exposure expressed by blood levels or dose, and the response framework validated by clinical or surrogate endpoint(s).

US-FDA has three types of NDAs for MR drug products:

  • IR to CR/MR switch
  • MR/CR to MR/CR switch with unequal dosing intervals
  • MR/CR to MR/CR switch with equal dosing intervals

For switching from an IR to a CR/MR product, which is more common in India, the key requirement is to establish that the new CR/MR product has similar exposure course of the drug as compared to the previously approved IR product, backed by well-documented efficacy and safety profile. If not, one efficacy and/or safety trial would be necessary, in addition to three clinical pharmacology studies.

Good for patients:

The good news for patients is that, being categorized as ‘New Drugs’, all NDDS formulations, without any exceptions whatsoever, would henceforth obtain marketing approval only from the Drug Controller General of India (DCGI), after having passed through intense data scrutiny, instead of State Drug Authorities where getting a manufacturing license of such formulations is alleged to be a ‘child’s play’. Thus, with the proposed amendment, efficacy and safety concerns of CR/MR formulations are expected to be addressed adequately.

Great for Pharma:

Currently, while fixing the ‘Ceiling Prices (CP)’ under DPCO 2013, National Pharmaceutical Pricing Authority (NPPA) treats CR/MR formulations at par with IR varieties of the same molecules having the same dosage strength.

Thus, categorization of all NDDS formulations as ‘New Drugs’, irrespective of the fact whether these are copies of studied and approved drugs or new ones, would be lapped up by the manufacturers from product pricing point of view. All these formulations, after the proposed amendment, would go outside the purview of drug price control under Para 32 (iii) of DPCO 2013, which categorically states that the provisions of this order shall not apply to:

“A manufacturer producing a ‘new drug’ involving a new delivery system developed through indigenous Research and Development for a period of five years from the date of its market approval in India.”

A similar past issue still haunts:

Similar callousness was exhibited in the past, while granting marketing approval for a large number of highly questionable Fixed Dose Combination (FDC) drugs by the same drug regulators. Unfortunately, that saga is still not over, not just yet. 

All these irrational FDC formulations, even after being identified so by the Drug Technical Advisory Board (DTAB), have been caught in the quagmire of protracted litigations. Consequently, such dubious products are still being promoted by the respective pharma players intensively, prescribed by the doctors uninhibitedly, sold by the chemists freely and consumed by patients ignorantly. With ‘pharmacovigilance’ being almost non-functional in India, the harmful impact of these drugs on patients’ health cannot just be fathomed.

Conclusion: 

With the above examples, it is quite clear that technological precision of high order is absolutely imperative to manufacture any effective CR/MR formulation. In addition, stark regulatory laxity in the marketing approval process for these drugs is a matter of great concern.

In such a scenario, one could well imagine how patients’ health interests are being compromised by not formalizing and adhering to appropriate regulatory pathways for marketing approval of such drugs in the country, since decades.

That said, as the saying goes “Better Late, Than Never”. The ‘New Drug’ nomenclature of all CR/MR formulations or for that matter entire NDDS as a category, including vaccines and recombinant DNA (r-DNA) derived drugs, would now hopefully be implemented in India, though rather too late, a much welcoming decision nevertheless.

By: Tapan J. Ray

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

Supreme Court Suspends New Drug Trials in India…Time to Shape Up?

Posted on by
Reply

On September 30, 2013, with a damning stricture to the Drug Regulator, the Supreme Court, in response to a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed by the NGO Swasthya Adhikar Manch, stayed approvals for 162 applications for local Clinical Trials (CTs) of new drugs approved by the Drugs Controller General of India (DCGI) earlier.

The apex court of the country granted the DCGI two weeks time to furnish evidence to the court that adequate patients’ safety and other related mechanisms have been put in place for CTs of all New Chemical Entities (NCEs) and New Molecular Entities (NMEs) in the country.

According to reports, during July and August 2013, the DCGI received 1,122 CT applications, out of which, 331 related to approval of global CTs. The New Drug Advisory Committee (NDAC) approved 285 drugs in AIDS, oncology, cardiology, neurology, psychiatry, metabolism and endocrinology therapy areas. Finally, 162 drugs received the green signal from the DCGI. Now all these trials have come to a halt.

At the same time, the court also directed the Ministry of Health to come out with a plan within 10 weeks to strengthen the regulatory framework for CTs in India based on various suggestions received from the state governments, other stakeholders and experts groups.

A casual approach?

Just to recapitulate, prior to this, on January 3, 2013, against the PIL, the bench of Honorable Justices R.M Lodha and A.R Dave of the Supreme Court reportedly observed that uncontrolled Clinical Trials (CT) are creating ‘havoc’ to human lives causing even deaths to many subjects in India.

In an interim order, the bench directed the Government that CTs could be conducted only under the supervision of the Health Secretary of India. Holding the Government responsible, the bench further observed, “You (Government) have to protect health of citizens of the country. It is your obligation. Deaths must be arrested and illegal trials must be stayed.”

Thereafter, though the Health Secretary of India approved the above 162 CTs, presumably following the above Supreme Court directive, it is an irony that when asked by the Apex Court, the government could not immediately explain precisely what systems and mechanisms have been put in place for proper conduct of these 162 CTs. It sought 2 weeks’ time to justify the action taken by the drug regulator in this regards.

Compromise on patients’ safety continues unabated: 

During another hearing early in October 2013 on a petition filed by the NGO ‘Swasthya Adhikar Manch regarding violations of norms during CTs, the Supreme Court reportedly sought details from the Union Government on the irregularities during the drug trial using Human Papilloma Virus (HPV) vaccines by the Seattle (USA) based organization PATH in Andhra Pradesh and Gujarat states of India.

This intervening application by the NGO was based on the 72nd Parliamentary Standing Committee (PSC) on Health and Family Welfare report dated August 30, 2013, where it was recommended that action should be taken against PATH, state governments of Andhra Pradesh, Gujarat, Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR) and other government officials including Drug Controller General of India (DCGI) for alleged violations on the subject.

The report highlights, HPV vaccines were given to 14,091 girls in Khammam district of Andhra Pradesh and 10,686 girls in Vadodra, Gujarat. These girls were between age group of 10 and 14, of which seven girls died due to such illegal vaccine trials.

Eventually, these trials were stopped, but only after the matter received media attention.

As per reports, the vaccines were provided by two pharma MNCs – Merck and GlaxoSmithKline through PATH. It also stated as follows:

“Vaccines were given to children irrespective of age in the case of Merck’s Gardasil vaccine. While permission was given to use GSK’s Cervarix vaccine in children of 10 to 14 years, CTs had been conducted on subjects in the age group of 18 to 35 years. Thus the safety and well being of subjects were completely jeopardized.”

No options but to shape-up:

It is worth mentioning, the above PIL had alleged that large scale drug trials being conducted across the country, mainly by the pharma MNC, are using Indian patients as ‘guinea pigs’, as it were. The NGO also told the Supreme Court that several pharmaceutical companies continue to conduct CTs quite indiscriminately, in various states of India, endangering lives of poorly/un-informed trial subjects.

In an affidavit to the Court, the Government admitted that between 2005 and 2012, 2,644 people died during CTs of 475 NCEs/NMEs with serious adverse events related deaths taking 80 lives.

Thus, coming under immense pressure from the civil society and now the scrutiny of the Supreme Court for so many CT related deaths and consequential patients’ compensation issues, the Government does not seem to have any other options left now but to bring US$ 500 million CT segment of the country, which is expected to cross a turnover of US$ 1 Billion by 2016, under stringent regulations.

Experts believe that the growth of the CT segment in India is driven mainly by the MNCs for easy availability of a large treatment naive patient population with varying disease pattern and demographic profile at a very low cost, as compared to many other countries across the world.

CT related deaths in India:

As per the Ministry of Health following are the details of deaths related to CTs registered in India from 2008 to August 2012:

Year Total no of deaths CT related deaths Compensation                  paid to patients:
2012 (up to August) 272 12 NA
2011 438 16 16
2010 668 22 22
2009 737 NA NA
2008 288 NA NA

It is estimated that over the last four years, on an average, 10 persons have died every week in India related to CT.

DCGI hauled-up 9 MNCs on patients’ compensation:

It is worth noting, absolutely unacceptable level of compensation, by any standard, are being paid by the concerned companies, including large MNCs, for the lives lost during CTs.

According to another report quoting the Drug Controller General of India (DCGI), 25 people died in clinical trials conducted by 9 pharma MNCs, in 2010. Unfortunately, families of just five of these victims received” compensation for trial related deaths, which ranged from an abysmal Rs 1.5 lakh (US$ 2,500) to Rs 3 lakh (US$ 5,000) to the families of the diseased.

This report also highlighted that arising out of this critical negligence, for the first time ever, the then DCGI was compelled to summon the concerned nine pharma MNCs on June 6, 2011 to question them on this issue and give a clear directive to pay up the mandatory compensation for deaths related to CTs by June 20, 2011, or else all CTs of these nine MNCs, which were ongoing at that time or yet to start, will not be allowed.

The 9 pharma MNCs summoned by the DCGI to pay up the mandatory compensation for deaths related to CTs were reported as Wyeth, Quintiles, Eli Lilly, Amgen, Bayer, Bristol-Myers Squibb (BMS), Sanofi, PPD and Pfizer.

The report also indicated that after this ultimatum, all the 9 MNCs had paid compensation to the concerned families of the patients, who died related to the CTs.

Prior indictment by Indian Parliamentary Committee:

On May 8, 2012, the department related ‘Parliamentary Standing Committee (PSC)’ on Health and Family Welfare presented its 59th Report on the functioning of the Indian Drug Regulator – the Central Drugs Standard Control Organization (CDSCO) in both the houses of the Parliament.

The report made the following scathing remarks on CDSCO under its point 2.2:

“The Committee is of the firm opinion that most of the ills besetting the system of drugs regulation in India are mainly due to the skewed priorities and perceptions of CDSCO. For decades together it has been according primacy to the propagation and facilitation of the drugs industry, due to which, unfortunately, the interest of the biggest stakeholder i.e. the consumer has never been ensured.”

Action just not enough yet:

Acting on the damning stricture by the Supreme Court, the Ministry of Health by a gazette notification of January 30, 2013 made the norms of compensation to patients participating in CTs more stringent. ‘Patient Compensation’ was proposed to include injury or death, even if those are not related to the drugs being tested in the CTs.

Understandably, reacting to this notification, some pharma companies, industry lobby groups and also Clinical Research Organizations (CROs) expressed concerns in areas like:

  • Lack of distinction between study-related injuries and non-study related injuries.
  • Use of placebos in placebo-controlled trials.
  • Lack of any arbitration mechanism in case of disagreement on causality/quantum of compensation and also lack of clarity on who constitutes the Expert Committee and its composition.

In addition, the DCGI requested the stakeholders’ to share their inputs to the independent experts advisory committee chaired by Prof. Ranjit Roy Chaudhury along with six other distinguished members namely, Dr V. P. Kamboj, Dr BT Kaul, Dr Vasantha Muthuswamy, Dr Mira Shiva 
and Dr Uma Tekur, to help formulating policy, guidelines and SOPs for approval of NCEs/NMEs and procedures for CTs, including the conduct of ethics committees, the accreditation of trials sites, inspections of trials sites, the ongoing monitoring of trials and banning of drugs. The Government on February 6, 2013 constituted this Committee.

This decision of the regulator, though under pressure, was praiseworthy. Unfortunately nothing substantially changed on the ground for CTs in India even thereafter, as no substantive action has yet been taken on the above expert committee recommendations.

The report of the experts committee:

Prof. Ranjit Roy Chaudhury experts committee in its 99-page report has reportedly recommended some radical changes in the CT space of India. Among others, the report includes the following:

  • Setting up of a Central Accreditation Council (CAC) to oversee the accreditation of institutes, clinical investigators and ethics committees for CTs in the country.
  • Only those trials, which will be conducted at centers meeting these requirements, be considered for approval by the DCGI. 
  • For speedy clearance of applications, a broad expertise based Technical Review Committee (TRC) will replace 12 New Drug Advisory Committees (NDACs), which are currently functioning for NCE/NME approvals.
  • The TRC would be assisted, as required, by appropriate subject experts selected from the ‘Roster of Experts’.
  • For any Adverse Effects (AEs) or Serious Adverse Effects (SAEs) during a CT, the sponsor investigator will be responsible for providing medical treatment and care to the patient at its/their cost till the resolution of the AEs/SAEs.
  • This is to be provided irrespective of whether the patient is in the control group, placebo group, standard drug treatment group or the test drug administered group.
  • A Special Expert Committee should be set up independent of the Drug Technical Advisory Board (DTAB) to review all drug formulations in the market and identify drugs, which are potentially hazardous and/or of doubtful therapeutic efficacy.
  • A mechanism should be put in place to remove these drugs from the market by the CDSCO at the earliest.

Though some of the above provisions were vigorously objected by the industry during stakeholders’ consultations, the committee in its final report has upheld those recommendations.

The main worry – costs of CTs will go up:

CTs, as we know, are of critical importance for obtaining marketing approval of any new drug and at the same time forms a major cost component in the new drug development process, across the world.

Any savings in this area, both in terms of time and money, will add significantly to the profit margin of the product. In that context, the above suggestions, if implemented to create a safety net for the patients participating in CTs, will make these trials more expensive for the concerned companies with increased liability.

Hence, we hear a hue and cry, especially from the pharma MNCs. This is mainly because, India was, thus far, a low cost CT destination for them with virtually no liability for the drug trial patients. This is because, the poor and ill-informed subjects are left in the lurch by many companies exploiting the gaping holes existing in the fragile CT system of the country. After the intervention of the Supreme Court in this regard, some foreign players have reportedly suspended their CTs in India for reasons best known to them.

Exploitation of CT regulations:

The system of CT in India has created a huge ruckus, as it has long been tainted with widespread malpractices, abuses and misuses by many players, both global and local. The issue is not just of GCP or other CT related standards but more of an ethical mind-set and well-reported rampant exploitation of uninformed patients, especially in case of trial-related injuries or even death.

The Bulletin of the World Health Organization (WHO) in an article titled, “Clinical trials in India: ethical concerns” reported as follows:

“Drug companies are drawn to India for several reasons, including a technically competent workforce, patient availability, low costs and a friendly drug-control system. While good news for India’s economy, the booming clinical trial industry is raising concerns because of a lack of regulation of private trials and the uneven application of requirements for informed consent and proper ethics review.”

Industry reactions:

Very interestingly, there have been a divergent sets of reactions from the industry on this issue.

An influential section in the CT space of the country has reacted, with gross indiscretion, to the most recent SC order banning CTs for NCEs/NMEs till a robust mechanism in India is put in place.

Commenting on the verdict, an industry leader has reportedly said:

“A black day for Indian science and a sad reflection on our judiciary”.

Such comments probably vindicate much talked about crony capitalistic mindset of this class. They do not hesitate a bit to display their scant respect even to the highest judiciary of the country, leave alone their glaring indifference to the important public health interest related issue. All such actions possibly emanate from the intense greed to protect and further the vested interests, not withstanding the gross injustice being meted out to the drug trial subjects as a consequence.

On the other hand, supporting the Supreme Court’s view, The Indian Society for Clinical Research (ISCR) reportedly has said:

“As a professional organization representing clinical research professionals across the stakeholder spectrum, ISCR is fully supportive of the need for a more robust and regulated environment for the conduct of clinical trials in India which ensures the practice of the highest standards of ethics and quality and where patient rights and safety are protected”.



ISCR further said, “As in every profession and industry, there will always be players who operate at both ends of the spectrum. While we do not condone any irregularities, we must acknowledge, there are several hundreds of clinical trials taking place in the country in compliance with international and local guidelines. There have been over 40 US FDA clinical trial audits done in India with no critical findings reported. There have also been several European regulatory audits of Indian clinical trial sites, again with no critical findings.”

That said, Indian Parliamentary Standing Committee, had commented on a ‘nexus between the industry and the drug regulator’ for continuation of such sorry state of affairs, since long.

‘Industry-pharma nexus’ in the USA too?

Recently, similar tricky relationship between the regulator and the pharma companies was unearthed again with the later paying hefty fees to attend meetings of a panel that advises the US FDA.

The article highlighted, an investigative report in the ‘Washington Post’ found that pharma companies paid as much as US$ 25,000 to attend sessions convened by a scientific panel on painkillers, and has led to claims that the industry was being given an opportunity to influence federal policy in this area.

Expected Government action:

The Supreme Court is expected to hear the matter on October 24, 2013.

Meanwhile, the Ministry of Health reportedly held meetings with concerned officials to chalk out the strategy before the Court, when this case would come up for hearing after two weeks.

The report says, the Government is planning to place before the court a comprehensive plan with details of the existing mechanism and ongoing efforts like, bringing the the new Drugs and Cosmetic (Amendment) Bill 2013 and incorporation of Prof. Ranjit Roy Chaudhury expert committee recommendations, to plug the loopholes in the new drug trial mechanism of the country. 

Conclusion:

While the importance of CTs to ensure better and more effective treatment for millions of patients in India is immense, it should not be allowed at the cost of patients’ safety, under any garb.  If the regulator overlooks this critical factor and some pharmaceutical players keep exploiting the system, judiciary has no option but to effectively intervene in response to PILs, as happened in this particular case too. 

Thus, I reckon, appropriate safety of human subjects participating in CTs and a fairplay in compensation, whenever justified, should be non-negotiable for the indian drug regulator. Despite reactions with indiscretion from a section of the industry, the Supreme Court is absolutely right to direct the DCGI to stop CTs for all NCEs/NMEs until the apex judiciary is satisfied that a robust system is in place for such trials in India. This will ensure, the scientific objectives of the CTs are properly achieved without any compromise on patients’ safety.

Breaking the nexus decisively between a section of the powerful pharmaceutical lobby group and the drug regulator, as highlighted even in the above Parliamentary Committee report, the Ministry of Health should, without any further delay, put in place a robust and transparent CT mechanism in India, come what may.

This well thought-out new system, besides ensuring patients’ safety and fairplay for all, will have the potential to help reaping a rich economic harvest through creation of a meaningful and vibrant CT industry in India, simultaneously benefitting millions of patients, as we move on.

That said, the moot question still remains: Will the drug regulator be able to satisfy the Supreme Court, as the two weeks expire, that appropriate mechanisms are in place to resume smooth conduct of CTs for the new drugs in India?

By: Tapan J. Ray

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

 

After Mollycoddling China Cracks Down on Pharma MNCs…But Why Now?

Posted on by
Reply

In tandem with exemplary growth in the healthcare sector, China has started confronting with some consequential hazards in form of serious regulatory violations involving, besides many others, hospitals, pharmaceutical pricing and food and drug safety, which reportedly include contaminated milk powder and rat meat sold as mutton.

A recent report indicates, there are rampant kickbacks at various stages in the healthcare delivery process. For example, hospitals get kickbacks from drug and device companies, and hospital executives give a portion of these kickbacks to their doctors, involving even the pharma MNCs.

While looking back, in 1997, China took its first healthcare reform measures to mend the earlier not so good practices, when medical services used to be considered just as any other commercial product or services in the country. As a result, staggering healthcare expenses made Chinese medical services unaffordable and difficult to access for a vast majority of the local population.

In April 2009, China, a country with over 1.35 billion population, unfolded a blueprint of a new phase of healthcare reform to provide safe, effective, convenient and affordable healthcare services to all its citizens. An incremental budgetary allocation of US$ 124 billion was made for the next three years to achieve this objective.

The core principle of healthcare reform in China:

The core principle of the new phase of Chinese healthcare reform is to provide basic health care as a “public service” to all its citizens, where more government funding and supervision will play a critical role.

This reform process will ensure availability of basic systems of public health, medical services, medical insurance and medicine supply to the entire population of China. It was also announced that priority would be given to the development of grass-root level hospitals in smaller cities and rural China. The general population will be encouraged to use these facilities for better access to affordable healthcare services. However, public non-profit hospitals would continue to remain one of the important providers of medical services in the country.

Medical Insurance and access to affordable medicines:

Chinese government has planned to set up diversified medical insurance systems to provide basic medical coverage to over 90 percent of the country’s population. In tandem, the new healthcare reform measures will ensure better availability of affordable essential medicines at all public hospitals.

Highly lucrative healthcare business destination:

New Chinese healthcare reform process carries an inherent promise of a large additional spending worth billions of US dollars every year catapulting China as one of the most lucrative healthcare markets of the world.

China’s healthcare spending has reportedly been projected to grow from US$ 357 billion in 2011 to US$1 trillion in 2020.

Consequently, this huge investment has started attracting a large number of global companies of various types, sizes and nationality competing for the right size of their respective pies of profits.

In that process, as the media reports highlight, global pharmaceutical players started fast increasing both their top-line revenue and bottom-line profits from the booming Chinese healthcare market.

Pharma MNCs growing bigger, outpacing local industry:

Another report highlighted, “60% of China’s healthcare stimulus money ended up going to non-Chinese multinationals”. Quoting a recent JP Morgan report the article indicated AstraZeneca, Sanofi, Roche, GlaxoSmithKline, Novo Nordisk, Johnson & Johnson and Pfizer realized over 30 percent growth from their China operations in the early part of 2011.

With the slow down of business in Europe and in the United States, even large global pharmaceutical players like, Bayer, Sanofi, Novartis, Eli Lilly, Novo Nordisk and many more have reportedly invested huge resources for capacity building in sales and distribution channels, local manufacturing and R&D.

Chinese Government woke-up:

Kick starting the reform process and in the face of high level of corruption, Chinese government initiated monitoring the effective management and supervision of healthcare operations of not only the medical institutions, but also the health services, together with basic medical insurance system, in good earnest.

It has been reported, though the public hospitals will receive more government funding and be allowed to charge higher fees for quality treatment, they will not be allowed to make profits through expensive medicines and treatment, which has been a common practice in China.

Violations meted with harsh measures:

Accordingly, with increased vigil in many of these areas since last couple of years, Chinese regulators have started cracking down on the culprits, who are being meted out severe and harsh punishments, consequently.

In 2012, seven public hospital directors were reportedly sent to jails for accepting kickbacks. One corrupt drug regulator was even executed along with two food-company managers involved in a poisoned milk scandal, as the report mentions.

Pharma MNCs targeted for alleged corrupt practices:

As stated above, the new healthcare reform measures include regulation of prices of medicines and medical services, together with strengthening of supervision of health insurance providers, pharmaceutical companies and retailers.

China has now reportedly targeted Multinational Companies (MNCs) for allegedly corrupt practices, including price-fixing, quality issues and consumer rights. This has forced some MNCs to defend their reputations in China where global brands often have a valuable edge over local competitors in terms of public trust.

Recently, in an effort to reduce drug prices, China has initiated probes involving 60 drug manufacturers.

According to a recent report, to make the pricing system for medicines more effective, the regulatory agencies in China are investigating the costs and prices of drug manufacturers including global pharma majors like:

  • GlaxoSmithKline Plc (GSK)
  • Merck & Co.
  • Novartis AG
  • Baxter International Inc.

The regulators are expected to go through the details of 27 companies for costs and 33 companies for pricing, as per the July 2, 2013 statement posted on China’s National Development and Reform Commission’s (NDRC) Evaluation Center of Drug Pricing.

The report highlights that a possible impetus for the NDRC to probe into pricing and costs of domestic and foreign drug companies was the announcement of China’s National Essential Drugs List in March, which increased the items on the list to 500 from 305.

Clampdown on government spending:

To exercise control on public expenditure towards drugs, the government has also reportedly clamped down on drug spending, placing some foreign drug makers’ products under price controls for the first time.

Since 2011, the Chinese Government has reduced the drug prices four times, including 15 percent reduction earlier in 2013, though the price reduction will be as much as 20 percent for the expensive drugs. At the same time, the government has reduced tax rebates on investments.

Mr. Chen Zhu, Health Minister of China has reportedly expressed that healthcare in China is still too expensive and there is still inadequate control over improper use of drugs in the country.

Another report indicates that Nestlé, Abbott Laboratories and Danone are under investigation in China for “monopolistic” pricing.

Crackdown on bribery and kickbacks:

An article in a similar context mentions that the “Chinese police started an investigation into the Chinese unit of the biggest pharmaceutical manufacturers of UK – GlaxoSmithKline and Senior executives at the unit are suspected of ‘economic crimes”.

On the same subject, a different news report also indicates, a senior Glaxo finance executive in Shanghai and employees in Beijing were detained as part of a corruption investigation.

Recently a Chinese Security Ministry official has reportedly said that GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) executives in China have confessed to bribery and tax violations.

The same report quoting the ministry highlighted that the case against GSK involved a large number of staff and a huge sum of money over an extended period of time, with bribes offered to Chinese government officials, medical associations, hospitals and doctors to boost sales and prices. Concerned executives also used fake receipts in unspecified tax law violations.

Interestingly, earlier in 2012, Global CEO of GSK reportedly admitted that the company made “unacceptable” mistakes in “mismarketing” their antidepressants Paxil and Wellbutrin, which were the subject of a US$ 3 billion settlement with the Justice Department of the United States. At that time the CEO was reported to have said “very sorry” for the incident and “determined that this is never going to happen again.” 

Another very recent news highlights that currently China is investigating at least four pharma MNCs as it widens its probe. Chinese enforcers had suggested that these pharma companies were using the same tactics to boost their businesses in the country.

It is now learnt that anti-trust body of China - State Administration for Industry and Commerce (SAIC)  has also visited  Shanghai office of UCB. 

Happening elsewhere too:

Reports of similar alleged malpractices have started surfacing from elsewhere in the world too. For example, in Denmark, a country known for low incidence of corrupt practices, a Norwegian cardiologist was reportedly charged with taking 2 million kronor, or about US$ 350,000, from Merck and Pfizer, despite the fact, Danish law prohibits doctors from accepting money directly from the drug makers. The concerned doctor allegedly used the cash to buy expensive furniture and salmon-fishing holidays in his home country.

Last year, both the Department of Justice and the Securities and Exchange Commission of the United States reportedly charged Pfizer and its subsidiary Wyeth for paying millions of dollars in bribes to officials, doctors and healthcare professionals in Bulgaria, China, Croatia, Czech Republic, Italy, Kazakhstan, Russia, and Serbia during 2001-2007 in violation of the US Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. They had also set hefty fines on the two to settle the charges.

Conclusion:

To effectively address serious and longer term healthcare related issues of the country, the Chinese Government has already started implementing its new healthcare reform measures earnestly. Possibly to maintain equity, stay on course and uproot corrupt practices, they have now started cracking down on the violators in all seriousness, be they are from within the country or beyond its shores.

So far as the pharma MNCs are concerned, such harsh measures are being taken for alleged malpractices probably for the first time ever of this scale and that too with full media glare.

All these measures coupled with pricing pressure and gradual rise of local Chinese players, would make the Chinese market increasingly challenging to  pharma MNCs.

Some global players have already started feeling the scorching heat of tough Chinese measures. But China is too powerful a country and too lucrative a market for any entity to flex its muscle to stall the current juggernaut, at least, till the ‘Dragon’  achieves its objective of bringing down public healthcare expenditure to its expectations…Or is there more to the problem than meets the eye?

Thus, the key question emerges: 

Why has China, after mollycoddling the pharma MNCs for so many years, now started cracking down on them so hard?

By: Tapan J. Ray

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

FDC Saga: Defiant Manufacturers, Sloppy Regulators and Humongous Inaction

Posted on by
Reply

“TO SIN BY SILENCE WHEN THEY SHOULD PROTEST MAKES COWARDS OF MEN”       – Abraham Lincoln

The ghost of untested, irrational and even of bizarre kind of Fixed Dose Combination (FDC) drugs, which continue to be launched, promoted, prescribed and sold freely across the length and breadth of India, has started haunting the Ministry of Health of India, yet again, in 2013. 

Though the issue originated decades ago, in 1988 appropriate ‘Rule’ of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act of India was amended suitably to have a firm regulatory grip over this situation. Despite this much awaited amendment, the situation almost went astray with incessant market entry of a large number untested FDC medicines of dubious medical rationale.

A free for all situation, as it were, in the FDC arena, continued to be facilitated by blatant laxity on the part of, especially, the state drug regulators by allowing unfettered market entry of such drugs, ignoring the CDSCO directive.

On the other hand, the Central Drugs Standard Control Organization (CDSCO), despite its statutory powers,  continued to suffer from humongous inaction untill the issue resurfaced again in 2007 and then of course, now in 2013.

The WHO Model:

The 2005 ʹProcedure to update and disseminate the WHO Model List of Essential Medicines, Criteria for Selection’ includes the following statement regarding Fixed Dose Combination products (FDCs):

ʺMost essential medicines should be formulated as single compounds. Fixed‐dose combination products are selected only when the combination has a proven advantage over single compounds administered separately in therapeutic effect, safety, and adherence or in delaying the development of drug resistance in malaria, tuberculosis and HIV/ AIDS.ʺ

Thus, FDCs:

  • Need to demonstrate clinical efficacy and safety beyond the individual drugs when given alone.
  • Need to ‘demonstrate bioequivalence of the single combined dose unit with the components administered in the same doses separately but concomitantly’.

‘Adherence’ aspect of WHO Model for FDCs is also important. Problems with ‘adherence’ could lead to inadequate and inconsistent dosing, which in turn could lead to development of drug resistance.

With robust and unquestionable medical rationale, FDCs are expected to provide superior efficacy and improved compliance without causing any untoward risk to patients.

A major disadvantage:

However, one of the major disadvantages with the FDCs is lack of flexibility in adjusting dose of individual ingredients, even if it is required for some patients. Internationally, most popular example is the FDCs of antiretroviral drugs for HIV infected patients like, Combivir, Trzivir, Kaletra etc.

Interestingly, in India there are FDCs for almost all disease areas from allergic disorders to Wolf-Parkinson-White syndrome (exaggerated), as it were.

Market attractiveness for FDCs in India: 

The domestic market for FDCs is very large and growing much faster, in sharp contrast to the western world. The following table will vindicate this point:

% Share

Drug

2008

2009

2010

2011

Plain

55

55

55

54
Combinations

45

45

45

46

Domestic Market: USD 13 Billion; MAT Apr 2013

Source:IMS

Thus, because of growing market demand, pharmaceutical companies in India tend to market FDCs of all different permutations and combination, at times even crossing the line of any ‘sound medical rationale’. For this reason, we find in the website of ‘Central Drugs Standard Control Organization’ (CDSCO), the banned list of so many FDCs.

A messy regulatory situation:

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

To check unfettered market introduction of potentially harmful FDCs, the Ministry of Health issued a Notification in September 1988, including FDCs in Rule 122 E of the Drugs & Cosmetics Rules (D&CR) 1945.

In effect, it removed the powers of the State FDAs to give manufacturing or marketing approval of FDCs. After the notification was issued, all manufacturers/marketers of all new FDCs are required to apply only to the Drug Controller General of India (DCGI) under Rule 122E of the D&CR 1945 as a new drug, along with the stipulated fees by way of a Treasury Challan.

Since this entire process entails appropriate regulatory data generation, besides  time and expenses involved, the above ‘Rule’ was continuously and deliberately broken and manufacturing and marketing approvals for various types of FDCs falling under ‘new drug’ category were regularly sought and granted by the State Drug Controllers.

Many believe that the State FDAs were equally responsible for knowingly flouting the Law, as were the pharmaceutical manufacturers.

Patients’ safety – the foremost concern:

Despite serious concerns expressed by a Parliamentary Standing Committee, this complicity resulted in the market being flooded with ‘irrational combinations’ which posed a real threat to patients’ interest and safety. The State FDAs were reminded of the notification by the earlier DCGI.

294 FDCs were banned by the DCGI in 2007. Thereafter, the important issue of patients’ interest and safety got converted into a legal quagmire, as many FDC manufacturers chose to go to the court of law to protect their business interest and also managed to obtain a ‘Stay’ order from the Madras High Court. The matter is still subjudice.

Be that as it may, those 294 FDCs banned by the Ministry of Health of India on health and safety grounds continue to be promoted, prescribed and sold to patients across India without any hindrance, whatsoever.  

Untangling the messy knot:

As the issue got entangled into prolonged litigations, the CDSCO took initiative of resolving this contentious issue again in 2009 with the help of an expert committee, involving the manufacturers.

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

After formal approval of DTAB, these combinations are construed to be new drugs and any company wishing to market/manufacture the formulation would require submitting its Application in Form 44 to the DCGI to get approval in Form 45.

This decision was expected to send a clear signal to all concerned that resorting to any form of shortcuts to bypass strict adherence to prescribed regulatory requirements, could seriously jeopardize patients’ interest and safety. The same process was subsequently followed for the balance 142 FDCs, as well.

Thereafter, a special committee was again appointed by the CDSCO in 2013 to look into this matter in a holistic way. However, such sporadic knee-jerk reactions have failed to deliver any tangible results in this area – not just yet.

The saga continues:

Even after the above critical decision of the DTAB the saga still continues.

In March 2013, by a written reply, the Minister for Health and Family Welfare reportedly informed the Lok Sabha (the lower House of the Parliament) that in twenty three cases of new FDC, licenses have been granted by the State Licensing Authorities (SLAs) without the mandatory approval of the DCGI and action will be taken in all these cases.

However, no one seems to know, as yet, what action the Government has taken against those errant officials.

Current scenario:

Recently, the Directorate General of Health Services (DGHS) by a notification to State Drug Controllers has reportedly ordered all manufacturers of new FDC products, licensed locally before October 2012 without CDSCO permission, to submit safety and efficacy data prior to 30 August 2013.

This decision of DGHS has created a furore within the concerned FDC manufacturers, yet again, the possible outcome of which is yet to be ascertained.

The State Drug Controllers had issued manufacturing licenses for these FDCs prior to October 2012. At that time concerned manufacturers were given 18 months time period to prove efficacy and safety of these medicines to the DCGI. Regrettably, as per the above report, the DCGI has confirmed that he has received hardly any response from the FDC manufacturers till date on this regulatory requirement.

CDSCO has also stated that manufacturers, who will fail to submit the required data by the deadline run the risk of having their products banned from the market.

Before this, the State Drug Controllers were informed about this requirement on January 15, 2013.

At this point it is worth mentioning, the DCGI in October 2012 had reportedly also barred the State Drug Controllers from granting manufacturing licenses to pharmaceutical companies under brand names of the drugs, directing them to strictly issue licenses under generic name of the molecule. Additionally, he also asked the state licensing authorities not to grant licenses to combination drugs, which are technically ‘new drugs’ and fall within the domain of DCGI only.

Conclusion:

This logjam with FDCs certainly cannot continue in perpetuity, neither should such regulatory sloppiness be acceptable to any right thinking stakeholder.

All blatant violations of Drugs and Cosmetics Act of India must be stopped forthwith and the violators be brought to justice without delay. Patients’ health interest, as required by the drug regulators, is non-negotiable.

The order of DGHS asking all manufacturers of new FDCs, licensed locally before October 2012 without CDSCO permission, to submit safety and efficacy data prior to 30 August 2013, should not follow recently reported Pioglitazone type of volte face, once again, under similar outside pressure.

It is high time now for the Government to bring the unending saga of  irrational and harmful FDCs, orchestrated by defiant manufacturers, encouraged by sloppy regulators and catalyzed by humongous systemic inaction, to its logical conclusion, for patients’ sake. 

By: Tapan J. Ray

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

 

 

Pioglitazone Conundrum: Should The Drug Regulator Step Over The Line?

Posted on by
Reply

Recent order of the Indian drug regulator to withdraw all formulations of the well known, yet controversial, anti-diabetic drug – Pioglitazone from the domestic market has created a flutter in the country, ruffling many feathers at the same time.

Withdrawal of any drug from the market involves well-considered findings based on ongoing robust pharmacovigilance data since the concerned product launch. To ascertain long-term drug safety profile, this process is universally considered as important as the processes followed for high quality drug manufacturing and even for R&D.

A paper titled, “Withdrawing Drugs in the U.S. Versus Other Countries” brings to the fore that one of the leading causes of deaths in the United States is adverse drug reaction. Assessing enormity and impact of this issue, the United Nations General Assembly for the first time in 1979 decided to publish a list of banned pharmaceutical products that different countries may use for appropriate decisions keeping patients’ safety in mind, as they will deem necessary from time to time.

An interesting finding:

Quite interestingly, the paper also highlights:

“There are a number of pharmaceuticals on the market in the USA that have been banned elsewhere and similarly, there are some drug products that have been banned in the United States, but remain on the market in other countries.”

Different policies in different countries:

The reason for the above finding is mainly because, various countries follow different policies to address this important health related issue. For example, though the United States will withdraw drugs based on the decision taken by its own FDA, it will also compare the action taken by countries like, UK, Japan, Australia and Sweden on the same subject.

However, many experts do believe that United Nations must take greater initiative to make all concerned much more aware about the UN list of dangerous drugs, which should be continuously updated to expect the least.

Need transparency in pharmacovigilance:

Pharmacovigilance has been defined as:

“The task of monitoring the safety of medicines and ensuring that the risks of a medicine do not outweigh the benefits, in the interests of public health.”

An article on Pharmacovigilance by A.C. (Kees) van Grootheest and Rachel L. Richesson highlights as follows:

“The majority of post marketing study commitments are never initiated, and the completion of post marketing safety studies (i.e., phase IV studies) declined from 62% between 1970 and 1984 to 24% between 1998 and 2003.”

Thus, in many countries, due to lack of required transparency in the pharmacovigilance process, harmful drugs continue to remain in the market for many years before they are withdrawn, for various reasons.

The above paper strongly recommends, “While there might be monetary benefits for each country in keeping these drugs on the market, the U.N. must step up the visibility of the withdrawal of dangerous drugs list.”

Recent Pioglitazone withdrawal in India:

Recently in India, the Ministry of Health under Section 26A of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 has suspended the manufacture and sale of Pioglitazone, along with two other drugs, with immediate effect, through a notification issued on June 18, 2013.

As per the Drugs and Cosmetic Rule 30-B, import and marketing of all those drugs, which are prohibited in the country of origin, is banned in India. Just as in the United States, the Ministry of health, while taking such decisions in India, compares long-term safety profile of the concerned drugs in countries like, USA, UK, EU and Australia.

A Parliamentary Standing Committee of India has already indicted the drug regulator for not taking prompt action on such issues to protect patients’ treatment safety.

Pioglitazone: the risk profile:

In India:

A leading medical journal (JAPI) cautions:

“Given the possible risk of bladder cancer, physicians have to be extremely careful about using pioglitazone indiscriminately in the future.”

The JAPI article continues to state:

“We require more robust data on the risk of bladder cancer with pioglitazone and Indian studies are clearly needed. Till that time, we may continue the use of this drug as a second or third line glucose-lowering agent. In all such cases, the patient should be adequately informed about this adverse effect and drug should be used in as small a dose as possible, with careful monitoring and follow up.”

In the USA:

In 2011 The US FDA as a part of its ongoing safety review of pioglitazone informed physicians and the public that use of this drug for more than 12 months is linked to an increased risk of bladder cancer.

The USFDA review is reportedly based on “an ongoing 10-year observational cohort study as well as a nested, case-control study of the long-term risk of bladder cancer in over 193,000 patients with diabetes who are members of the Kaiser Permanente Northern California (KPNC) health plan.”

Based on this finding US FDA directed that physicians should:

  • Not use pioglitazone in patients with active bladder cancer.
  • Use pioglitazone with caution in patients who have a prior history of bladder cancer, adding, “The benefits of blood sugar control with pioglitazone should be weighed against the unknown risks for cancer recurrence.”
  • Tell patients to report any signs or symptoms of “blood in the urine, urinary urgency, pain on urination, or back or abdominal pain, as these may be due to bladder cancer.”
  • Urge patients to read the pioglitazone medication guide.
  • Report adverse events involving pioglitazone medicines to the FDA MedWatch program.

The moot point:

Considering the above US FDA directives in the Indian context, the moot point therefore is, whether it will be possible for the drug regulator to ensure that physicians and the patients in India follow such steps for drug safety with pioglitazone?

In Canada:

Another new Canadian study has again reportedly linked Pioglitazone with risks of bladder cancer and cautioned, “physicians, patients and regulatory agencies should be aware of this association when assessing the overall risks and benefits of this therapy.”

Pioglitazone and its combinations banned in France and Germany:

After a government-funded study, tracking diabetics from 2006 to 2009, concluded that Pioglitazone increases bladder cancer risk, the French Medicines Agency (FMA) announced withdrawal of Pioglitazone along with its fixed-dose combination with Metformin, as well.

FMA also advised doctors to stop prescribing Pioglitazone, plain or in combination, and asked patients, who are on this drug to consult their doctors immediately.

Simultaneously, German health authorities also acted on similar lines.

An intriguing comment by the Indian drug regulator:

Keeping all these in view, it is indeed intriguing to note that the Indian drug regulator is reportedly open to re-examine the case of pioglitazone and revoking its ban in India, if strong scientific evidences emerge in support of safety and efficacy of the drug.

However, the question then comes up is what more new scientific evidences that the Indian drug regulator is now expecting, especially when the pharmacovigilance studies are almost non-existent in India?

Moreover, such comments of the drug regulator not only prompt raising doubts about the fragility and hastiness of his own decision of banning Pioglitazone in India, but also amply demonstrate lack of seriousness in his part on this extremely important decision on drug safety?

‘Drug Product Liability Claims’ in India virtually non-existant:

In most of the developed countries, appropriate regulations are in place for product liability claims.

Under this law, if any patient suffers injury in any form while administering  a pharmaceutical drug, the patient concerned is eligible to make pharmaceutical-drug-based product liability claims, which usually involve a huge amount of money by any imaginable standard.

These claims are based on:

  • Improperly marketed pharmaceutical drugs. This category includes:

- Failure to provide adequate or accurate warnings regarding a dangerous side effect.

- Failure to provide adequate instructions on safe and appropriate use of the drug.

- The “bad advice”, which may have been given by the manufacturer or by a doctor, pharmacist, sales rep, or some other medical provider.

In the United States drug safety and effectiveness related litigations reportedly also include:

-        Criminal and civil complaints brought by the U.S. Department of Justice.

-        Lawsuits brought by state Attorney Generals and private plaintiffs under state consumer protection acts and other causes of action.

In India, closer to the above system there is a law in paper, named as “Products Liability”. This law deals with the liability of manufacturers, wholesalers, distributors, and vendors for injury to a person or property caused by dangerous or defective products. The aim of this law is to help protecting consumers from dangerous or defective products, while holding manufacturers, distributors, and retailers responsible for putting into the market place products that they knew or should have known were dangerous or defective. However, in reality, there are hardly any damages slapped by consumers on to the manufacturers in India under this ‘Product Liability’ law.

It may sound however bizarre, but is a hard fact that many drugs in Fixed Dose Combinations (FDCs) had never even gone through any form clinical trials on human volunteers before they were for the first time allowed to be marketed in India by the drug regulators.

In absence of any active steps taken by the government to educate and encourage patients to make use of this law, patients, by and large, would continue to pay a heavy price for their ignorance, keeping their mouth shut all the way, while using:

- Defectively manufactured pharmaceutical drugs.

- Pharmaceutical drugs with dangerous side effects.

- And even improperly marketed pharmaceutical drugs.

As stated before, it is worth repeating, neither is their any functional pharmacovigilance system in place in India.

Drug product liability suit for Pioglitazone in the United States:

Just to cite an example, one report indicates:

“According to court filings, all of the Actos (Pioglitazone) lawsuits pending in the Western District of Louisiana allege Takeda Pharmaceuticals failed to provide adequate warnings to doctors and patients regarding the drug’s association with an increased risk of bladder cancer. Last month (April, 2013), the nation’s first trial involving Actos bladder cancer allegations ended with a Los Angeles Superior Court jury awarding $6.5 million to a plaintiff who was diagnosed with the disease after taking the drug for four years”. However, the judge overseeing the case granted Takeda Pharmaceuticals’ request to set aside the verdict.

The report also indicates, ‘more than 1,200 Actos bladder cancer claims are pending in the Louisiana litigation. Additional Actos lawsuits have been filed in state litigations in California and Illinois.’

Indian doctors and manufacturers protest together against Pioglitazone ban:

It is equally intriguing to note, despite serious life threatening side-effect and restricted usage profile of Pioglitazone, as established internationally through robust and large clinical studies, both the doctors and the Pioglitazone manufacturers in India are urging the government to lift ban on this drug immediately, keeping the silent patient community in the front line, as usually happens all over.

A news report highlighted that ‘doctors flayed the ban on anti-diabetes drug Pioglitazone and requested the Centre to reverse its decision in interest of patients.’

Another media report highlighted, major drug makers are strongly opposing the move of the government to ban Pioglitazone, in India.

Conclusion:

Without generating another set of robust evidence proving contrary to what has been already concluded in the United States and EU based on strong supporting pharmacovigilance data, if the Indian drug regulator revokes the ban of Pioglitazone, it will be construed as a huge compromise with patients’ safety interest with this drug.

This issue assumes even greater importance, when the ‘drug product liability’ system is almost dysfunctional in India.

The other alternative of the drug regulator is to revoke the ban, wilting under combined pressure of the manufacturers and doctors and ask for safety warnings trying to emulate, as it were, what has been done by the US FDA.  

In which case, with full knowledge that it is virtually impossible for any one to comply with the above US FDA requirements in India, will the drug regulator not step over the line, yet again?

By: Tapan J. Ray

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

Counterfeit Drugs and ACTA: Should the global menace related to ‘Public Health and Safety’ be mixed-up with Intellectual Property Rights?

Posted on by
Reply

Here in this article, I am talking about drugs or medicines, which you may ultimately land up into buying, quite innocently though, against your doctor’s prescriptions, without having an inkling that these drugs can push you into serious health hazards, instead of addressing your ailments, as your doctor would have desired to.

These are ‘Counterfeit’, ‘Fake’, ‘Spurious’ or ‘Sub-standard’ drugs, in whatever name we may call them. Such substances in the guise of drugs are therapeutically harmful for the patients and are a global menace. This needs to be addressed urgently and with a military precision.

However, public health policy experts have been arguing since long that the issues of such dimension related to critical ‘Public Health and Safety’ needs to be addressed expeditiously by all concerned with focus, without mixing it up with any other commercial considerations or IP related matter, as is being done by some vested interests across the world. India, in this case as well, is of course no exception.

Some reports:

Following are examples of some reports regarding deliberations on this critical issue:

  • A new study published recently in ‘The Lancet’ reported that 7% of anti-malarial drugs tested in India are of poor quality and many were found fake.
  • A February, 2012 report of ‘The National Initiative against Piracy and Counterfeiting’ of FICCI highlighted that the share of fake/counterfeit medicines is estimated at 15% – 20% of the total Indian pharmaceutical market.
  • Another recent report of the US Customs and Border Protection highlighted, “India and Pakistan both made it to top 10 source countries this year due to seizures of counterfeit pharmaceuticals. Pharma seizures accounted for 86% of the value of IPR seizures from India and 85% of the value of IPR seizures from Pakistan.”

However, in this context, it is worth mentioning that the Indian Pharmaceutical Industry along with the Government has been continuously questioning the original source of fake drugs with prominent ‘made in India labels’ on the outer packaging material. It will not be difficult for many to recall that a couple of years ago consignments of ‘counterfeit or fake drugs’ wearing ‘made in India’ labels were confiscated by the drug regulator of Nigeria (Africa), which after a thorough investigation were found to have originated from China.

A contrarian report – CDSCO Survey:

Central Drugs Standard Control Organization (CDSCO) of the Government of India released the following details on ‘Counterfeit Drugs’ in India from 2006 to 2010, which shows that the issue is not as acute as it is shown above:

Year Drugs samples tested % of sub-standard drugs % of spurious drugs Prosecution for crime Persons arrested
2006 – 07

34738

5.8

0.22

115

12
2007 – 08

39117

6.2

0.19

120

122
2008 – 09

45145

5.7

0.34

220

133
2009 -10

39248

4.95

0.29

138

147

TOTAL

158248

5.66

0.26

593

414

This ‘Pan-India survey report of CDSCO’ shows that from 2006 to 2010 the percentage of both ‘Substandard’ and ‘Spurious’ drugs were quite low in India.

However, the more worrying fact, as seen in the report is, the arrests and prosecutions for this heinous crime are also abysmally low in India.

IP related ‘counterfeit’ drugs are relatively smaller in numbers: 

WHO has identified following types of counterfeit medicines:
• Without active ingredients: 32% • Wrong ingredients: 21.4% • Incorrect quantities of active ingredients: 20.2% • Right quantities of active ingredients but in fake packaging: 15.6% • High levels of impurities and contaminants: 8.5% • “Substituted ingredients of anything from paracetamol to boric acid, talcum powder, rat    poison or road paint”: 2.3%

In addition, 50% of medicines purchased online from illegal internet are ‘counterfeit or fake’

From the above data, it appears that IP related ‘counterfeit or fake’ drugs are relatively small in number.

‘Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA)’:

The subject gets more complicated when such critical ‘Public Health and Safety’ related issue is leveraged to further strengthen Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) and address commercial issues in different ways.

One such initiative was ‘Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA)’. This was signed mostly by the developed countries of the world in October 2011.

ACTA is a plurilateral international trade agreement aimed at countering more efficiently not only the menace of counterfeit goods, generic medicines and copyright infringement on the internet, but also Intellectual Property (IP) related issues, including stringent enforcement of product patents.

This agreement was primarily designed to form a new forum, outside the existing ones, like for example United Nations (UN), World Trade Organization (WTO) or the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) and was signed by Australia, Canada, European Union, Japan, Morocco, New Zealand, Singapore, South Korea, and the United States. However, the agreement has not been formally approved by any of them, as yet.

According to European Commission, “ACTA is an international trade agreement that will help countries work together to tackle more effectively large-scale IPR violations. Citizens will benefit from ACTA because it will help protect Europe’s raw material – innovations and ideas.”

Two aspects of ACTA definition:

As per ACTA definition, there are two aspects for a medicine being termed as ‘Counterfeit’, which are as follows:

  1. ‘Health and safety’ issues, arising out of therapeutically harmful medicines
  2. Violation of IP rights like, patents, trademark and design

It raises more questions than answers:

ACTA definition, as mentioned above, has led to confusion mainly because, if a patent infringing product is termed ‘counterfeit or fake’ in one country, what will then the same product be called in another country where the molecule has gone off-patent? 

Moreover, countries which consider such types of drugs ‘fake’ or ‘counterfeit’, will have the full right to destroy even the in-transit consignments containing such products, not only causing economic loss to the exporter, but also jeopardizing public health interest at the destination countries. Just to site an example, in not too distant past, consignments of generic medicines exported from India to Brazil were seized at the European ports

Thus, many experts feel that ACTA poses a potential risk for global access to generic medicines endangering public health interest, as it could restrict free passage of such drugs through many ports of the world on IP grounds, as happened more than once in the past.

‘Generic medicines’ to be left unharmed:

In this context, Ellen‘t Hoen, former Policy Advocacy Director of MSF’s Campaign for ‘Access to Essential Medicines’ wrote in April 2009 as follows:

“People often seem to confuse counterfeit, substandard and generic medicines – using the terms interchangeably. But they are very separate issues and clearly defining their differences is critical to any discussion”.

Ongoing WHO debate: 

‘Intellectual Property Watch’ in May 20, 2010 reported that:

“Brazil and India claimed that WHO’s work against counterfeit and substandard medicines is being influenced by brand-name drug producers with an interest in undermining legitimate generic competition. The Brazilian ambassador told ‘Intellectual Property Watch’ there is a ‘hidden agenda’ against generics for countries like Brazil.”

“India and Brazil filed requests for consultations with the European Union and the Netherlands over the seizure of generic medicines in transit through Europe. This is the first step towards a dispute settlement case, and if issues cannot be resolved via consultations then formation of a dispute settlement panel could be requested in the coming months”.

However, as reported by ‘The International Center for Trade and Sustainable Development (ICTSD)’, after the Government of India had taken it up strongly with the EU, the issue of confiscation of in-transit consignments of generic drugs has since been resolved.

Three emerging views:

Arising out of all these, there are following three different clearly emerging views on the global issue of counterfeit drugs:

1. The innovator companies feel that the generic pharmaceutical industry and the drug regulators of the developing countries are not really very keen to effectively address and resolve the global issue of ‘Counterfeit Drugs’.
2. The generic companies and the drug regulators of the developing countries feel that the problem is not as acute as it is being projected to be and the innovator global pharmaceutical companies through their intense advocacy campaigns are trying to exploit the sentiment against spurious and harmful drugs to fight against generic medicines and cheaper parallel imports.
3. Some other important stakeholders, including a section of NGOs claim that an intense ‘Public Health and Safety’ related sentiment is being leveraged by the R&D based global pharmaceutical companies to extend IPR issues to “patients’ safety” related concerns, for vested interest.

The role of WHO:

The leadership role of the WHO is extremely important to effectively eliminate the global menace of ‘Counterfeit Drugs’ for ‘Public Health and Safety’. Across the world, patients need protection from the growing threat of ‘Counterfeit Medicines’. As a premier global organization to address such critical issues effectively, especially for the developing world, the WHO needs to play a more proactive and stellar role in future.

A Rational Approach:

The groups opposing ACTA recommend the following approaches to address the menace of ‘Counterfeit or Fake or Spurious or Harmful Medicines’:

  1. Address the issue of ‘Public Health and Safety’ by strengthening regulatory systems, related laws of the country and the stakeholder awareness program. In case of India, recently amended Drugs and Cosmetics Act needs to be properly implemented in letter and spirit.
  2. The issue of violation of IP should be dealt with through effective enforcement of IP laws of the country.
  3. There should not be any mix-up between ‘Public Health and Safety’ and ‘IP related issues’, in any way or form.

Countries already approached WHO:

Earlier, along with countries like Indonesia and Thailand, India could make the WHO realize that mixing up the above two issues could pose serious impediment for the supply of cheaper generic medicines to the marginalized sections of the society, globally. 

Weak regulatory enforcement lead to more ‘Counterfeit/Fake’ drugs:

The menace of counterfeit medicines is not restricted to the developing countries like, India alone. It is seen in the developed countries, as well, but at a much smaller scale. Thus, it is generally believed that the issue of ‘counterfeit drugs’ is more common in those countries, where the regulatory enforcement mechanism is rather weak.

A study done by IMPACT in 2006 indicates that in countries like, the USA, EU, Japan, Australia, Canada and New Zealand, the problem is less than 1%. On the other hand, ‘in the developing nations like parts of Asia, Latin America and Africa more than 30% of the medicines are counterfeits’.

Conclusion:

In the meeting of the TRIPS Council of the World Trade Organization (WTO) held in June, 2012, developed countries continued to reiterate that ‘Counterfeiting of Drugs’ being a critical issue should be deliberated upon by the council, expeditiously.

However, emerging countries like, Brazil, India and China strongly opposed this view by reemphasizing that in the name of ‘Counterfeit Drugs’ issues of IPR violations should not be clubbed with ‘Public Health and Safety’. They argued that IPR violation should in no way be confused with sub-standard drugs or therapeutically harmful medicines and any attempt to discuss the menace of harmful or substandard medicines at the WTO platform will be improper.

Developing nations, in general, have already alleged in various global forums that being unsuccessful in their efforts to use ACTA in making the IP environment even more stringent, the developed countries are now trying to use the WTO to achieve the same objective.

The debate continues and the moot question still lingers: Why should the issue of ‘Public Health and Safety’ get mixed-up with ‘Intellectual Property (IP)’ related problems?

By: Tapan J Ray

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