Tag Archives: Should

Should India allow use of Compulsory License as a common tool to improve access to medicines?

Posted on by
Reply

Compulsory License (CL) is generally considered a very important provision in the Patent Act of a country to protect public health interest not only by the governments, but also by a large number of experts across the globe and the intelligentsia within the civil society.

The key objectives:

The key objectives of the CL provisions in the statute are to:

  • Rectify any type of market failure
  • Discourage abuse of a patent in any form by the patent holder

WHO hails CL provisions:

‘The World Health Organization (WHO)’ says that ‘the provision for Compulsory Licenses (CL) is a critical element in a health-sensitive patent law’. It emphasized that CL constitutes an effective mechanism to:

-     Promote competition

-     Increase affordability of drugs, while ensuring that the patent owner obtains compensation

for the use of the invention

-     Lack or insufficiency of working of patent

-     Remedy of anti-competitive practices

-     National emergency

-     Government use for non-commercial purpose

-     Other public interest grounds

WHO also recommends the use of CL for any “abuse of patent rights”. This is primarily to ensure that drug prices remain consistent with local purchasing power.

Even ‘UNAIDS’ have recommended the use of CL, as provided under the TRIPS Agreement, where countries have the right to issue such licenses.

Views of R&D based pharma companies:

It is well known that the provisions for the grant of CL other than national emergencies have been generally opposed by the research-based pharmaceutical industry on the grounds that they discourage investments on R&D.

Despite such opposition, most developed countries have CL provisions in their law, which the respective governments can use to promote competition and access to medicines.

Provisions for CL in TRIPS Agreement:

While TRIPS agreement does not limit the grounds or reasons for granting CL, countries can only use those grounds which are allowed by their own national legislation. The development of appropriate national legislation is therefore crucial.

TRIPs further states that the conditions under which a compulsory license is granted should be regulated in accordance with the TRIPs Agreement (Article 31), under a number of conditions aimed at protecting the legitimate interests of the right holder.

Examples of CL provisions in some important countries:

China: Quite close on the heel of grant of Compulsory License (CL) to Bayer AG’s expensive Kidney and Liver cancer drug Sorafenib Tosylate to the domestic Indian manufacturer Natco by the Indian Patent Office, as provided in the Indian Patent Law, China amended its own Patent Law allowing Chinese pharmaceutical manufacturers to make cheaper generic equivalent of patented medicines in the country not only during ‘state emergencies’, but also in ‘unusual circumstances’ or ‘in the interests of the public’.

U.S: Patent law does not provide for CL, which is allowed under the antitrust law. US has been granting CL to remedy anti-competitive practices and for governmental use, including national security.

Canada:  The country introduced CL for drugs, way back in 1923. Canada has granted number of CLs and a robust generic pharmaceutical industry exists in that country.

France: French law authorizes CL when medicines are “only available to the public in insufficient quantity or quality or at abnormally high prices”.

Israel: In Israel a CL can be granted, “if it is necessary to assure the public of a reasonable quantity of a product capable of being used as a medicament, to manufacture a medicament or a patented process for manufacturing a medicament.”

Brazil:  The country will grant CL in cases of “national emergency or public interest, declared by the Federal Executive Authorities. A temporary nonexclusive compulsory license can be granted if necessary. Brazil defines Public Health interest to include “public health protection, satisfying nutritional requirements, protection of the environment and other areas of fundamental importance to the technological or social and economic development of the country.”

Very few CLs granted between 1995-2012:

Despite having the provisions for the grant of CL in many countries, not many CLs have been granted across the world from 1995 to date. The details are as follows:

Country Medicine CL granted in
Israel Hepatitis B Vaccine October 1995
Italy Imipenem (antibiotic) June 2005
Italy Sumatripan Succinate (migraine) February 2006
Canada Oseltamivir (influenza) July 2006
Brazil Efavirenz (HIV/AIDS) May 2007
Thailand Erlotinib, Docetaxel (cancer) January 2008
India Sorafenib Tosylate (cancer) March 2012

Source: DNA, March 9, 2012

India joins the league in 2012:

Indian Patent Office granted a Compulsory License (CL) for Sorafenib Tosylate (Nexavar of Bayer Corporation) to Hyderabad based Natco Pharma Limited under the provisions of Section 84 of the Indian Patents Act. Nexavar is used for treatment for liver and kidney cancer.

The Compulsory License, first of its kind granted in India, enables Natco to sell the drug at a price not exceeding Rs. 8880 (US$ 178 approx.) for a pack of 120 tablets (one month’s therapy) against Rs. 284,428 (US$ 5,690 approx.) being the cost of Nexavar sold by Bayer before the CL was granted to Natco. The license is valid till the expiry of the patent on 2021.

The order on CL also makes it obligatory for Natco to supply the drug free of cost to at least 600 needy and deserving patients per year.

The grant of CL generated adverse impact from many developed nations of the world, as was expected by many.

However, welcoming the order Natco reportedly commented, “This opens up a new avenue of availability of life savings drugs at an affordable price to the suffering masses in India.”

Does grant of CL for non-NLEM products make sense in India?

Currently all government healthcare initiatives in India are focused on ‘The National List of Essential Medicines 2011 (NLEM 2011)’, be it drug price control, free distribution of medicines to all through government hospitals/health centers or even much hyped, ‘Universal Health Coverage’ proposal.

In this situation, another school of thought says that by granting CL to Natco for Sorafenib Tosylate (Nexavar of Bayer), which does not fall under NLEM 2011, hasn’t India diluted its focus on essential drugs? More so, when NLEM 2011 features quite a good number of anti-cancer drugs, as well.

The other side of the argument: Is CL a viable solution to improve access in the developing nations?

International Policy Network (IPN) in an article titled, “Compulsory licensing no solution to health problems in poor countries – say experts from India, Argentina, Canada and South Africa” stated that patents and other forms of Intellectual Property (IP) are an essential component in economic development of any emerging economy, which needs to be well protected by the governments.

The article further opines that any form of interference with IP by the grant of CL or even price controls will undermine investments and cause more harm than good. The paper, therefore, calls for stronger protection of IP across the world.

Yet another paper  titled, “The WTO Decision on Compulsory Licensing – Does it enable import of medicines for developing countries with grave public health problems”, states that flexibility of innovator companies to adjust prices according to purchasing power of the people of different countries is constrained by the following two reasons:

  • A genuine risk that medicines sold at lower prices in the developing countries will be re-exported to high income markets.
  • Many high income developed countries also regulate the prices of medicines at the national level. There is a high risk that these countries will use prices in the developing markets as external reference pricing.

Thus, the author argues, in both the above situations, patented medicine prices will be undermined in the most important markets, making it difficult for the research-based companies to use prices only of high income countries to fund R&D costs for the discovery of new medicines.

Fostering innovation in India:

The healthcare industry in general and the pharmaceutical sector in particular have been experiencing a plethora of innovations across the world, not only to cure and effectively manage ailments to improve the quality of life, but also to help increasing overall disease-free life expectancy of the population with various types of treatment and disease management options.

Innovation being one of the key growth drivers for the knowledge economy, the creation of an innovation friendly ecosystem in India calls for a radical change in our mind-set.

From process innovation to product innovation, from replicating molecules to creating new molecules- a robust ecosystem for innovation is the wheel of progress of any nation, and India is no exception. It is encouraging to hear that the Government of India is working towards this direction in a more elaborate manner its 12th 5 year plan.

However, the question that is being raised now: will frequent grant of CL vitiate the attempt of the government to create an innovative culture within the pharmaceutical industry in India. 

CL will not arrest increasing ‘OoP’ for healthcare in India:

While India is making reasonable strides in its economic growth, the country is increasingly facing constraints in proving healthcare benefits to a vast majority of its population with ballooning ‘Out of Pocket (OoP)’ expenditure of around 78 per cent of its population.

This is mainly because of the following reasons:

  1. Absence of ‘Universal Health Coverage’
  2. Lack of proper healthcare financing and insurance system for all strata of society
  3. Difficulty in managing the cost of healthcare even when the country is providing generic drugs for a sizable part of the world market

One finds some good initiatives though, for population Below the Poverty Line (BPL) and hears about the success of ‘Rashtriya Swasthya Bima Yojna (RSBY)’ and other health insurance schemes through micro health insurance units, especially in rural areas. It has been reported that currently around 40 such schemes are active in the country.

As the disease pattern is undergoing a shift from acute to chronic non-infectious diseases, OOP on healthcare will increase further.

Currently health insurance schemes only cover expenses towards hospitalization. Ideally, medical insurance schemes in India should also cover domiciliary or in-patient treatment costs and perhaps loss of income too, along with hospitalization costs, if India wants to bring down the OoP for its population or at least till such time the ambitious ‘Universal Health Coverage’ project gets translated into reality.

Greater focus of the Government in these areas, many believe, will help increasing access to essential medicines very significantly in India, rather than frequently granting CL, as is being envisaged by many, especially for drugs, which are outside NLEM 2011.

Access to patented medicines unlikely to be addressed effectively despite frequent grant of CL: 

As we know, access to healthcare comprises not just medicines but more importantly healthcare infrastructure like, doctors, paramedics, diagnostics, healthcare centers and hospitals . In India the demand for these services has outstripped supply. There is a huge short fall in ‘Healthcare Manpower’ of the country as demonstrated in the following table:

Target

Actual

Shortfall %
Doctors

1,09,484

26,329

76
Specialists

58,352

6,935

88
Nurses

1,38,623

65,344

53
Radiographers

14,588

2,221

85
Lab Technicians

80,308

16,208

80

Source: Rural Health Statistics 2011 in 12th Plan draft chapter

Thus, there is an urgent need to have a holistic approach with the ‘Universal Healthcare’ in developing adequate healthcare infrastructure, efficient delivery system for medical supplies and creation of a talent pool of healthcare professionals and paramedics, to ensure access to healthcare for all the citizens of the country.

Without all these how will the diseases be diagnosed and the patients be treated for ailments, frequent grant of  CL not withstanding? 

Conclusion:

Be that as it may, the prices of medicines in general and the patented drugs in particular will continue to remain highly sensitive in most parts of the world, if not all, which some astute Global CEOs of the pharmaceutical majors have already contemplated.

One of these Global CEOs very aptly commented, “Pharmaceutical industry, too, on its part, needs to metamorphose to strike a balance in delivering affordable and innovative medicines. It is unacceptable to hear of the US$1billion cost to develop a drug, which includes the cost of failure. We need to fail less often and succeed more often.”

He reiterated, “Pharma companies need to understand that just because you have a patent, people don’t suddenly have money in their pockets, or can afford American prices.”

In the same context another Global CEO said, “Our strategy is really to have affordable medicines because in emerging markets you do not have government reimbursement. So you have to have medicines that people can afford to pay for.…I do not want us to be a colonial company with a colonial approach where we say we decide on the strategy and pricing. If you have to compete locally then the pricing strategy cannot be decided in Paris but will have to be in the marketplace. People here will decide on the pricing strategy and we have to develop a range of products for it.”

Keeping all these developments in view, as I said before, the contentious issue of the price of medicines cannot just be wished away across the world, which is perhaps more relevant now than ever before.

This is irrespective of the fact whether the country provides likes of ‘Universal Health Coverage’ or is driven by OoP expenditure by the majority of its population. Gone are those days, as articulated by the above Global CEOs, when a single global price for a product will be acceptable by all the nations across the world. India seems to be moving to this direction cautiously but steadily. 

It appears, responsible pricing and effective working of patents are the only answers to respond to the CL issue in India.

Thus, I reckon, it does make sense for India to have the relevant provisions of CL in its Patent Act, not just to rectify any type of market failure, but also to discourage any possible abuse of a patent in any form by the patent holder in the country, as mentioned above.

However, it is also important for India to examine the potential negative impact of CL to foster innovation in the country and the global ramification of the same, including attraction of more ‘Foreign Direct Investments (FDI)’, which has been universally proved to be so important for the economic progress of any country, like India and China.

That said, while none can deny that all citizens of India should have access to affordable life-saving essential medicines, it appears rather impractical to envisage that routine grant of CL by the Indian Patent Office, as enumerated above by Natco et al, will be able to resolve the critical issue of improving access to essential medicines on a longer term basis in India.The decision for grant of CL, I reckon, should be taken in India only after exhausting all other access improvement measures.

As enumerated above, the use of CL as a common tool to improve access to medicines could prove to be counterproductive in the long run for 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.

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.

Should high prices of new drugs, causing low access to majority of patients, be attributed to high R&D cost?

Posted on by
Reply

Many thought leaders have been arguing since long that pharmaceutical R&D expenses are being over stated and the real cost is much less. An article titled “Demythologizing the high costs of pharmaceutical research”, published by the London School of Economics and Political Science in 2011 indicates that the total cost from discovery and development stages of a new drug to its market launch was around US$ 802 million in year 2000. This was worked out in 2003 by the ‘Tuft Center for the Study of Drug Development’ in Boston, USA.

However, in 2006 the same figure increased by 64 per cent to US$ 1.32 billion, as reported by a pharmaceutical industry association. Maintaining similar trend, if one assumes that the R&D cost will increase by another 64 per cent by 2012, the cost to bring a new drug to the market through its discovery and development stages will be around US $2.16 billion. This will mean a 2.7 times increase from its year 2000 estimate, the article says.

The authors mentioned that the following factors were not considered while working out the 2006 figure of US$ 1.32 billion:

  • The tax exemptions that the companies avail for investing in R&D.
  • Tax write-offs amount to taxpayers’ contributing almost 40% of the R&D cost.
  • The cost of basic research (should not have been included), as these are mostly done in public funded universities or laboratories.

The article comments that ‘half the R&D costs are inflated estimates of profits that companies could have made if they had invested in the stock market instead of R&D and include exaggerated expenses on clinical trials’.

The authors alleged that “Pharmaceutical companies have a strong vested interest in maximizing figures for R&D as high research and development costs have been the industry’s excuse for charging high prices. It has also helped generating political capital worth billions in tax concessions and price protection in the form of increasing patent terms and extending data exclusivity.”

The study concludes by highlighting that “the real R&D cost for a drug borne by a pharmaceutical company is probably about US$ 60 million.”

Declining Pharmaceutical R&D productivity:

That pharmaceutical R&D productivity is fast declining has been vindicated by ‘2011 Pharmaceutical R&D Factbook’ complied by Thomson Reuters, the key highlights of which are as follows:

  • 21 new molecular entities (NMEs) were launched in the global market in 2010, which is a decrease from 26 NMEs of the previous year.
  • 2010 saw the lowest number of NMEs launched by major Pharma players in the last 10 years
  • The number of drugs entering Phase I and Phase II clinical trials fell 47% and 53% respectively during the year.

Does pharmaceutical R&D always create novel drugs?

According to a recent report, US-FDA approved 667 new drugs from 2000 to 2007. Out of which only 75 (11%) were innovative molecules having much superior therapeutic profile than the existing ones. However, more than 80% of 667 approved molecules were not found to be better than those, which are already available in the market.  Thus, the question very often being raised by many is, why so much money is spent on discovery and development of ‘me-too’ drugs and thereafter for their prescription generation through aggressive marketing, when the patients pay for the entire cost of such drugs including the profit after being prescribed by the doctors?

A global CEO challenged the status quo:

By challenging the status quo, Andrew Witty, the global CEO of GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) in his speech  in Mumbai on September 27, 2011 to the members of the Indian pharmaceutical industry commented that the cost of over a billion dollar to bring a new molecule to the market through its discovery and development stages is “unacceptable.” He attributed such high R&D expenses to the ‘cost of failure’ by the industry.

Witty said, “High in-house failure rates are slowing progress on pricing affordability… We need to fail less and deliver more”.

He commented during his deliberation that success in reducing the R&D cost to make innovative drugs more affordable to the patients of all income levels, across the globe, will be the way forward in the years ahead.

Ways to reduce the R&D cost:

Some other experts articulated that sharp focus in the following areas may help containing the R&D expenditure to a great extent and the savings thus made, in turn, can fund a larger number of R&D projects:

  • Early stage identification of unviable new molecules and jettisoning them quickly
  • Newer cost efficient R&D models, like one implemented by GSK
  • Significant reduction in drug development time.

An opposite view:

The book  titled “Pharmaceutical R&D: Costs, Risks, and Rewards”, published by the government of USA states that the three most important components of R&D investment are:

  • Money
  • Time
  • Risk

Money is just one component of investment together with a long duration of time to reap the benefits of success intertwined with a very high risk of failure. The investors in the pharmaceutical R&D projects not only take into account of how much investment is required for the project against expected financial returns, but also the timing of inflow and outflow of fund with associated risks.  It is thus quite understandable that longer is the wait for the investors to get their return, greater will be their expectations for the same.

The publication also highlights that the cost of bringing a new drug from the ‘mind to market’ depends on quality and sophistication of science and technology involved in a particular R&D process together with associated investment requirements for the same. In addition, regulatory requirements to get marketing approval of a complex molecule for various serious disease types are also getting more and more stringent, increasing their cost of clinical development simultaneously. All these factors when taken together make the cost of R&D very high and unpredictable.

Thus to summarize, high pharmaceutical R&D costs involve:

  • Sophisticated science and technology dependent high up-front financial investments
  • A long and indefinite period of negative cash flow
  • High tangible and intangible costs for acquiring technology with rapid trend of obsolescence
  • High risk of failure at any stage of product development

Conclusion:

While getting engaged in to this debate, one should possibly keep in mind that effective patent exclusivity period in the pharmaceutical industry is much limited as compared to any other industry across the globe. This is mainly because a long period of 8-10 years goes between drug discovery/grant of patent, drug development and market launch of the new molecule, when it starts recovering the cost and making a profit. Thus the period of effective commercial exclusivity that a new drug enjoys through patent protection usually lasts not more than 10 to 12 year period.

For all these reasons and despite such a huge controversy, I wonder, even if the R&D expenditures are brought down to the year 2000 level of US$ 802 million through various productivity improvement measures, whether it will really be possible to develop a commercial R&D model by any pharmaceutical company to deliver low price innovative drugs ensuring high access to majority of the patients. For that one should possibly look at other R&D models like, ‘Patent Pool’ and ‘Open Source Drug Discovery (OSDD)’ systems along with various funding options.

Thus in my view, high prices of new drugs, causing low access to majority of patients, should by and large be attributed to high R&D cost. However, there is not even an iota of doubt about commercial unsustainability of such ballooning research and development expenditures even in the medium term.

That said, the arithmetic of pricing for a new marketable molecule could change dramatically, if “the real R&D cost for a drug borne by a pharmaceutical company be just about US$ 60 million”, as argued by the authors of a publication quoted above, though the figure, I reckon, is quite unrealistic.

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.

Credible role of CCI and NPPA should allay fear of possible ill effects of FDI in Pharmaceuticals

Posted on by
Reply

On August 3, 2011, ‘The Hindu Business Line’ reported, “Domestic drug-makers worried by side-effects of MNC buyouts.” It opined, “Acquisitions in the pharma industry came in for sharp focus, after several domestic drug-makers sold their operations partially or entirely to overseas companies – raising concerns of, among other things, increase in medicine prices.”

However, on August 4, 2011 the same business daily retorted, “MNC drug-makers allay fears of rise in prices.” It asserted, “Multinational drug-makers have stressed that they are committed to achieving the country’s healthcare goals”.

March 18, 2011 issue of  ‘Export Import News’ wrote, “FDI in pharma sector comes down during current financial year as debate on ‘Take-Overs’ rages on”.

The Union Health Minister Mr. Ghulam Nabi Azad is reportedly arguing in favor of putting a cap on the FDI limit for pharmaceuticals in India. This is based on an apprehension that such FDI would have an overall adverse impact on the health care scenario of the country, especially, on pricing and availability of medicines to the common man.

It has also been reported that the Commerce Ministry is in favor of reviewing the situation after taking into consideration of the report to be submitted to them by an international consulting firm. This seems to have been prompted by the request of the Department of Pharmaceuticals (DoP) based on the recent takeovers of Indian companies by the Multi National Pharmaceutical Corporations. It appears that the recommendations of the Ministry of commerce, prepared in consultation with the DoP, will then be forwarded to the Economic Advisory Council to the Prime Minister for a final direction on the much hyped and talked about issue.

Views of the Planning Commission of India:

Meanwhile, most of the daily business papers of India reported that on July 12, 2011, the Deputy Chairman of the Planning Commission of India Mr. Montek Singh Ahluwalia commented, “I don’t think there is any move anywhere to prevent the expansion of existing 100% foreign owned pharmaceutical companies or to prevent green field investment by foreign companies.”

A reasonable comment:

This comment of Mr. Ahluwalia seems quite reasonable, considering the fact that full control of powers on Mergers and Acquisitions of the Competition Commission of India (CCI) effective June 1, 2011, has already been notified.

CCI to address all possible adverse impact on competition due to M&A:

The Competition Commission of India (CCI) will now carefully scrutinize the possibilities of the market being less competitive due to Mergers and Acquisitions (M&A) of companies across the industry in the country. This concern becomes even greater, especially, in the horizontal mergers and acquisitions between the comparable competitors in the same products or geographic markets, as we have been witnessing also in the pharmaceutical sector of India, over a period of time.

However, the country is yet to notice any quantifiable ill effects of such horizontal or vertical M&A. Neither is there any major case pending with the CCI in this regard for the pharmaceutical sector.

Competition related scrutiny is nothing new in the developed markets:

Competition related scrutiny during M&A is nothing new in the developed markets of the world and is already being followed in the USA, the countries within the European Union (EU) and elsewhere.

Key concerns with M&A in pharmaceuticals:

Many believe that M&A even in the oligopolistic nature of pharmaceutical market in any country, if not abused will not do any harm to competition.  Possibly for this reason, it will be rather difficult to cite many examples, the world over, where companies have been stopped from merging by the regulators because of anti-competitive reasons.

Another school of thought, however, believes that large M&A could ultimately lead to oligopolistic nature of the pharmaceutical industry with adverse impact on competition. Thus M&A regulations are very important for this sector.

Moreover, we need to remember that competition no longer depends only on the number of players in any given field. To explain this point many people cite the example of two large global players in the field of brown liquid beverages, Coke and Pepsi, where despite being limited competition, consumers derive immense value added economic benefits due to cut throat competition between these two large players.

It goes without saying, CCI must ensure that in any M&A process, even within the pharmaceutical industry of India, such rivalry does not give way to an absolute monopoly, directly or indirectly.

M&A activity in India:

In India, the consolidation process within the Pharmaceutical Industry started gaining momentum way back in 2006 with the acquisition of Matrix Lab by Mylan. 2008 witnessed one of the biggest mergers in the Pharmaceutical Industry of India, when the third largest drug maker of Japan, Daiichi Sankyo acquired 63.9% stake of Ranbaxy Laboratories of India with US $4.6 billion.

Last year, in May 2010, Chicago based Abbott Laboratories acquired the branded generics business of Piramal Healthcare with US$3.72 billion. This was soon followed by the acquisition of Paras Pharma by Reckit Benkiser.

The ground realities:

In India, if we look at the ground reality, we find that the market competition is extremely fierce with each branded generic/generic drug (constituting over 99% of the Indian Pharmaceutical Market, IPM) having not less than 50 to 80 competitors within the same chemical compound. Moreover, 100% of the IPM is price regulated by the government, 20% under cost based price control and the balance 80% is under stringent price monitoring mechanism.

In an environment like this, the apprehension of threat to ‘public health interest’ due to irresponsible pricing will be rather imaginary. More so, when the medicine prices in India are the cheapest in the world, cheaper than even our next door neighbors like, Bangladesh, Pakistan and Sri Lanka.

CCI and NPPA will play a critical role:

One of the key concerns of the stakeholders in India is that M&A will allow the companies to come together to fix prices and resort to other anti competitive measures. However, in the pharmaceutical industry of the country this seems to be highly unlikely because of effective presence of the strong price regulator, National Pharmaceutical Pricing Authority (NPPA), as mentioned above.

Thus even after almost three years of acquisition, the product prices of Ranbaxy have remained stable, some in fact even declined. As per IMS MAT June data, prices of Ranbaxy products grew only by 0.6% in 2009 and actually fell by 1% in 2010. Similarly post acquisition of Piramal Healthcare by Abbott USA and Shantha Biotech by Sanofi of France, average product price increases of these two Indian subsidiaries were reported to be just around 2% and 0%, respectively.

However, even if there is any remote possibility of M&A having adverse effect on competition, it will now be taken care of effectively by the CCI, as it happens in many countries of the world,  Israel being a recent example involving an Indian company.

‘Competition Commission’ does intervene:

In the process of the acquisition of Taro Pharma of Israel by Sun Pharma of India in 2008, being concerned with the possibility of price increases due to less competitive environment in three generic carbamazepine formulations, the Competition Commission in Israel intervened, as happened in many other countries.  As a result, Sun Pharma was directed by the regulator to divest its rights to develop, manufacture and market of all these three formulations to Torrent Pharma or another Commission approved buyer.

There are many such examples, across the world, of Competition Commission playing a key role to negate any possible ill effect of M&A.

Will the new Competition Law delay the M&A process?

Some apprehensions have been expressed that the new competition law could delay the process of a Mergers and Acquisitions (M&A) . However, it is worth noting, in case the CCI will require raising any objection after the voluntary notification has been served, they will have to do so within 90 working days, otherwise the M&A process will deem to be solemnized.

Conclusion:

I reckon, in the M&A process, the entire Pharmaceutical Industry in India would continue to act responsibly with demonstrable commitment to help achieving the healthcare objectives of the nation.

Global players will keep on searching for their suitable targets in the emerging markets like India, just as Indian players are searching for the same in the global markets. This is a process of consolidation in any industry and will continue to take place across the world.

Adverse impact of M&A on competition, if any, will now be effectively taken care of by the CCI. In addition, the apprehension for any unreasonable price increases post M&A will be addressed by the National Pharmaceutical Pricing Authority (NPPA).

Thus, there are enough checks and balances already being in place to avoid any possible adverse impact due to M&A activities in India.In this evolving scenario, it is indeed difficult to understand, why the FDI issue related to M&A in the Pharmaceutical space of India is still catching headlines of both in the national and international media.

Be that as it may, it goes without saying that as we move on, the role of CCI in all M&A activities within the Pharmaceutical Industry of India will be keenly watched by all concerned, mainly to ensure that the vibrant competitive environment is kept alive within this sector.

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

The top 10 environment polluters of the world should now transform themselves into the top 10 saviours of the world from the disaster of Climate Change

Posted on by
Reply

Global awareness dawned early:

After World War the second, various types of atmospheric pollution started drawing increasing public attention in the western world, both in the USA and Europe.

In Europe, the incidence of London’s ‘Great Smog’ in 1952 initiated the process of bringing in ‘The Clean Air Act’ in 1956. This Act is believed to be one of the first legislations on environment in the world. Similarly in the USA in 1969 ‘The National Environment Policy Act’ was passed by the US Congress.

As we know, globally environmental pollution takes place mainly through carbon emission related to various developmental activities like construction, manufacturing, mining, motor vehicles, aircrafts; combustion equipment etc. All such emissions are gradually assuming alarming proportions.

Though CO2 is absolutely essential for photosynthesis of plant life, its raised level through the above developmental activities, very often adversely impacts the protective ozone layer of the earth triggering the process of climate change.

Sustained increase in atmospheric CO2 has also been shown to critically affect the sea water by increasing its acidity level, which in turn could endanger the marine ecosystem.

The key question:

Therefore, the moot question now is how to balance various developmental activities related to social and economic progress of nations with the preservation of global natural ecosystems.

Top 10 environment polluters of the world:

As per recent reports the top 10 environment polluters of the world are as follows:

1. China: Emits maximum CO2 of 6,018 million tonne. However, in terms of per capita emission, with 4.5 tonne China ranks 44 in the world, Australia being at the top of the list with 20.58 tonne followed by USA, Canada and Saudi Arabia. China has now pledged to cut its carbon intensity goal by 40-45 per cent by 2020.

It is important to note that against the suggestion of Denmark, the BASIC countries (Brazil, South Africa, India and China) have refused to set a target of reduction of the global carbon emission by half, by 2050. BASIC countries emphasized that the developed nations should first work out an implementable model for emission cut before setting up any target.

2. United States: Emits 5,903 million tonnes of CO2 with a plan to cut the emission by 17 per cent from 2005 level by 2020. Per capita emission of CO2 of the USA, which ranks no.2 in the world, is 19.78 tonne.

3. Russia: Emits 1,704 million tonnes of carbon dioxide and agreed to cut emission by 25 percent, by 2020, if others also do the same.

4. India: Emits 1,293 million tonne of carbon dioxide with per capita emission of 1.16 tonne and agreed to cut emission by 20 to 25 per cent from 2005 level by 2020.

5. Japan: Emits 1,247 million tonne of carbon. It is important to note that last year in Japan CO2 emission came down by 6.2 per cent and the country agreed to reduce its CO2 emission by 2020 from its 1990 level by 25 per cent, if similar steps are taken by other developed nations of the world.

6. Germany: Emits 858 million tonne of carbon dioxide.

7. Canada: Emits 614 million tonne of carbon dioxide with per capita emission of 18.81 tonne. The country agreed to reduce its emissions by 2020 from 2006 level by 20 per cent.

8. U.K: Emits 586 million tonnes of carbon dioxide with a declining emission level. As compared to 1990 level, EU has agreed to a 20 percent cut in emission by 2020.

9. South Korea: Emits 514 million tonnes of carbon dioxide and agreed to reduce its emissions 4 per cent below 2005 levels by 2020.

10. Iran: Emits 471 million tonnes of carbon dioxide. The country is worst hit by environmental pollution with marine ecology of the Caspian Sea is in great danger.

Conclusion:

Besides recent Copenhagen Accord more practical and effective steps must be taken by the global community, especially by these top 10 environmental polluters, to ensure quick and more substantial reduction in CO2 emission to arrest the climate change. This is obviously not expected to happen, as said earlier, at the cost of development and economic progress of any nation. The issue of climate change can primarily be addressed with initiation of various energy efficient measures to produce clean energy with increased sense of urgency.

Greater use of existing technologies like solar and wind power, electric and hybrid cars together with integrated robust projects to preserve natural ecosystems could save the humanity from the disastrous consequences of global climate change.

By Tapan Ray

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

Healthcare reform process and policy measures to reduce socio-economic inequalities should be implemented in tandem for optimal economic progress of a nation.

Posted on by
Reply
Important research studies indicate that health of an individual is as much an integral function of the related socio-economic factors as it is influenced by the person’s life style and genomic configurations.It has now been well established that socio-economic disparities including the educational status lead to huge disparity in the space of healthcare.Healthcare preventive measures with focus just on disease related factors like, hygiene, sanitation, alcohol abuse, un-protected sex, smoking will not be able to achieve the desired outcome, unless the underlying socio-economic issues like, poverty, hunger, education, justice, values, parental care are not properly addressed.

It has been observed that reduction of social inequalities ultimately helps to effectively resolve many important healthcare issues. Otherwise, the minority population with adequate access to knowledge, social and monetary power will always have necessary resources available to address their concern towards healthcare, appropriately.

Regular flow of newer and path breaking medicines to cure and effectively treat many diseases, have not been able to eliminate either trivial or dreaded diseases, alike. Otherwise, despite having effective curative therapy for malaria, typhoid, cholera, diarrhoea/dysentery and venereal diseases, why will people still suffer from such illnesses? Similarly, despite having adequate preventive therapy, like vaccines for diphtheria, tuberculosis, polio, hepatitis and measles, our children still suffer from such diseases. All these continue to happen mainly because of socio-economic considerations.

Following are some research studies, which I am using just as examples to vindicate the point:

• HIV/AIDs initially struck people across the socio-economic divide. However, people from higher socio-economic strata responded more positively to the disease awareness campaign and at the same time more effective and expensive drugs started becoming available to treat the disease, which everybody suffering from the ailment cannot afford. As a result, HIV/AIDS are now more prevalent within the lower socio-economic strata of the society.

• Not so long ago, people across the socio-economic status used to consume tobacco in many form. However, when tobacco smoking and chewing were medically established as causative factors for lung and oral cancers, those coming predominantly from higher/middle echelon of the society started giving up smoking and chewing of tobacco, as they accepted the medical rationale with their power of knowledge. Unfortunately the same has not happened with the people of relatively lower socio-economic status. As a consequence of which, ‘Bidi’ smoking, ‘Gutka’/tobacco chewing have not come down significantly within people belonging to such class, leading to more number of them falling victim of lung and oral cancer.

Thus, in future, to meet the unmet needs when more and more sophisticated and high cost disease treatment options will be available, it will be those people with higher socio-economic background who will be benefitted more with their education, knowledge, social and monetary power. This widening socio-economic inequality will consequently increase the disparity in the healthcare scenario of the country.

Phelan and Link in their research study on this issue has, therefore, remarked:

“Breakthroughs in medical science can do a lot to improve public health, but history has shown that, more often than not, information about and access to important new interventions are enjoyed primarily by people at the upper end of the socioeconomic ladder. As a result, the wealthy and powerful get healthier, and the gap widens between them and people who are poor and less powerful.”

Conclusion:

Though healthcare reform measures are essential for the progress of any nation, without time bound simultaneous efforts to reduce the socio-economic inequalities, it will not be easy for any nation to achieve the desirable outcome.

By Tapan Ray

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

Tackling the menace of counterfeit medicines – vested interests or petty sentiments should not make the pressing public healthcare issue irrelevant.

Posted on by
Reply
There are following three clearly emerging views on the global issue of counterfeit drugs:1. The innovator companies feel that the generic pharmaceutical industry and the drug regulators are
not really very keen to effectively address and resolve this global public health issue.2. The generic companies and the drug regulators feel that the problem is not as acute as it is
projected to be and the innovator global pharmaceutical companies through their intense advocacy
campaign are trying to exploit the situation to fight against generic medicines and parallel imports.

3. Some other group, including a section of NGOs claim that an important public health sentiment is
being used by the R&D based global pharmaceutical companies to extend intellectual property rights
(IPR) to patients’ safety issue, allegedly for vested interest. These organizations have taken their arguments
to various international platforms like Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) and
International Medical Products Anti-Counterfeiting Taskforce (IMPACT) of the World
Health Organization (WHO), for effective resolution of their grievances.

Addressing some of these concerns:

• IPR being extended to the definition of counterfeit medicines:

Even in India, ‘misbranding’ though an integral part of IPR, is considered as a public health issue and is an offence under Section 17 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Acts, 1940. Albany Law Journal of Science and Technology, 2006 has estimated a loss to the industry towards such counterfeit medicines of US$ 30 billion, which is about 6% of the turnover of the global pharmaceutical industry.

• Magnitude of problem with counterfeit medicines has been inflated:

In the industrialized and developed nations of the world with effective regulatory control, the problem perhaps, may not be as acute. 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%.

Similar study, on the other hand, indicated that in the developing nations like parts of Asia, Latin America and Africa more than 30% of the medicines are counterfeits. It has also been reported that in South East Asia, estimated prevalence of counterfeit artesunate for malaria is 33-53%.

• Apprehension from some section of the generic pharmaceutical industry:

Apprehensions from some section of the generic pharmaceutical industry that attempts are being made by the interested groups within the industry to bring generic drugs under the purview of counterfeit medicines, is indeed unfounded. As from no developed countries around the world, there has been any threat to non-patent infringing legal generic medicines. And why there should be any such threat at all, when the world is witnessing the global pharmaceutical companies scaling up their generic business operations?

On the contrary generic pharmaceutical business, in almost all developed markets across the world, is growing at a much faster pace than the patented products of the innovator companies and this trend is expected to continue at least in short to medium term.

An unexplained similarity:

From the above details one will be tempted to draw a conclusion that in all those countries where access to modern medicines is poor, incidences of counterfeit medicines are higher. IMPACT has reported counterfeit versions of all types of medicines ranging from anti-malarial, anti-hypertensives, anti-tubercular, anti-retroviral to cardiovascular and other life saving and life style drugs, from these countries.

Various types of counterfeit medicines:

WHO has indicated 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”

• Medicines purchased online from illegal internet sites: 50%

Factors influencing flourishing trade of counterfeit medicines:

WHO IMPACT has reported following key factors:

• Low manufacturing costs, thus higher profit margin

• Albany Law Journal reports that high pricing ratio of counterfeit medicines compared to a branded
product attracts counterfeiters

• In countries like India the risk of detection of fake medicines is quite low where the penalties for such
heinous crime even today is very lenient, as the amended anti-counterfeit law, for some strange
reasons, has not been made operational, as yet.

Global sales forecast for counterfeit medicines:

The sales of counterfeit medicines across the world as estimated by the ‘Centre for Medicine in Public Interest’ will be around US$75 billion by the end of 2010. This is an increase of over 90% as compared to 2005.

Incidence of detection of counterfeit medicines:

A report from the WHO’s Executive Board in its 124th session indicated that the detection of counterfeit medicines in 2007 had increased to more than 1,500. This reflects an increase of around 20% over 2006 and ten times more compared to year 2000.

Volume of counterfeit seizures, the world over:

WHO indicated that in 2005-06 the volume of counterfeit drug seizures included 2.7 million articles and the main countries where these articles originated from, were reported as follows:

• India: 31%
• UAE: 31%
• China: 20%

Conclusion:

We have, therefore, enough data to establish that counterfeit drugs are posing a growing menace to the humanity. All stakeholders should join hands to address this public health issue, leaving aside petty commercial interests, be it generic pharmaceutical companies or research based pharmaceutical companies, across the world and India is no exception. Otherwise, thugs and criminals who are running to their banks, more often than ever before, with sacks full of money from this illicit trade, at the cost of the innocent patients, will keep going almost scot free, forever.

By Tapan Ray

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

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

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

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

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

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

‘Biosimilar drugs’ – emerging global interest:

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

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

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

Current status of ‘Biosimilar drugs’ in the USA:

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

Lucrative Global market potential for ‘Biosimilar drugs’:

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

Opportunity for the Indian biotech companies:

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

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

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

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

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

Advantage India:

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

Two available choices for the innovator companies:

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

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

By Tapan Ray

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