From Cross-Licensing to ‘Patent Pools’ and… India: Will there be a ground swell?

Posted on May 23, 2011 by Tapan Ray

Since many years, the global pharmaceutical industry has been making effective commercial use of cross-licensing, however, by and large, the industry still does not seem to be quite in favor of ‘Patent Pools’ for various reasons.

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

Thus one of the often repeated key benefits of the ‘Patent Pools’, as considered by its proponents, is that the system enables the use of innovation against payment of royalties, without the risk of patent infringement. Many believe that the concept of ‘Patent Pool’ can play an immensely useful role for productive use of Intellectual Property (IP) in the global pharmaceutical industry.

The difference between cross-licensing and ‘Patent Pools’:

The basic purposes of both Cross-Licensing and patent pools may appear to be similar, however the key difference is that in ‘Patent Pool’ system the patent owners usually agree to license to third parties who may not even contribute any patents to the pool. Moreover, ‘Patent Pools’ involve a large number of parties with its scope being narrow and well standardized.

“Patent Pools”- still a contentious issue:

The concept of ‘Patent Pools’ has become a contentious issue within the global pharmaceutical industry. Some opinion leaders vehemently argue that creation of a ‘patent pool’ will bring down the cost of any innovation significantly and save huge time, ensuring speedier and improved access to such medicines to a vast majority of ailing population across the world. This section of the experts also feels, “in the case of blocking patents as a commercial strategy, it would only be a reasonable method for making the innovation publicly available.”
In the midst of this high decibel debate, on February 13, 2009, ‘The Guardian’ reported the following comment of Andrew Witty, CEO of GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) on the same issue:
“GSK will put any chemicals or processes over which it has intellectual property rights that are relevant to finding drugs for neglected diseases into a patent pool, so they can be explored by other researchers”.
Andrew Witty in that interview also commented, “I think it’s the first time anybody’s really come out and said we’re prepared to start talking to people about pooling our patents to try to facilitate innovation in areas where, so far, there hasn’t been much progress… I think the shareholders understand this and it’s my job to make sure I can explain it. I think we can. I think it’s absolutely the kind of thing large global companies need to be demonstrating, that they’ve got a more balanced view of the world than short-term returns.”
Quoting Andrew Witty, ‘The Guardian’ reported, “his stance may not win him friends in other drug companies, but he is inviting them to join him in an attempt to make a significant difference to the health of people in poor countries”.
Yet another ‘out of box’ comment:
As if to prove ‘The Guardian’ right on their above comment, during his visit to India on March 2010, though in a slightly different context, Witty made the following comments, while answering a question of “The Economic Times”:
“I am relatively relaxed with the Indian regulatory environment. The government has made it clear about the direction to have an Intellectual Property (IP) mechanism and to be TRIPS compliant. Some people are unrealistic and want everything to change overnight. But we should be absolutely realistic about pricing to keep it affordable for India. If someone has the IP right, it does not mean that it should make it inaccessible for lower income people. Over the next 10-15 years India will become increasingly IP defined market.”
The rationale for ‘Patent Pools’ system:
Many experts in this area feel that the conventional patent system does not really work for the diseases of the poor, all over the world. Though the concept of ‘Patent Pools’ is quite new in the global pharmaceutical industry, this system is being very successfully and widely practiced within the Information Technology (IT) industry. ‘Patent Pool’ system, if effectively used, as stated earlier, can also help the global pharmaceutical companies to improve access of such medicines to many more developing countries of the world.

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

National Institute of Health (NIH), USA initiated the process:
On September 30, 2010, NIH became the first patent-holder to share its intellectual property with the Medicines Patent Pool, supported by UNITAID, by licensing a patent for ‘Darunavir’ to increase access of HIV and AIDS medicines to the suffering patients in the developing countries of the world.

UNITAID, an innovative global health financing mechanism is funded by a levy on airline tickets. This initiative was co-founded by the U.K, France, Norway, Brazil and Chile at the United Nations General Assembly in 2006 and buys drugs against HIV/AIDS, malaria and tuberculosis.
The above move of NIH towards the noble cause was appreciated by many all over the world, urging the global pharmaceutical industry, in general, to take a leaf out of it.

India was kept out of UNITAID “Patent Pool”:

In 2009-10, UNITAID reportedly had opposed the move to include countries like, India, China and Brazil from the proposed patent pool for AIDS drugs. At least seven civil society groups from India like, the Centre for Trade and Development, the National Working Group on Patent Laws, the All India Peoples Science Network openly stated that UNITAID does not intend to share the patent pool implementation plan with these civil society groups of India. They also alleged that this development in UNITAID will have a significant impact on the ability of Indian Pharmaceutical industry to manufacture low-cost versions of patented HIV/AIDS medicines for the developing countries of the world.

At that time, it was also reported that large global pharmaceutical players had indicated to UNITAID that they could contribute to the ‘patent pool’ on a selective basis, however, over 100 middle income countries such as India, Brazil and China should not have rights to manufacture generic versions of these HIV/AIDS medicines. They felt that ‘patent pool’ will be meaningless if poor countries, who do not have the capability to manufacture these medicines, are included in the process.

However, according to UNITAID, “the patent pool in no way a means to replace or override other provisions contained in the Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) Agreement or the Doha Declaration on TRIPS and Public Health. The patent pool represents an additional tool to increase access to HIV treatment, and an opportunity for patent holders to voluntarily contribute to the attainment of crucial health-related goals endorsed by the international community.”

GSK kick-started the process:

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

J&J followed suit:

Johnson and Johnson (J&J) in January 2011 expressed its willingness to assist ‘Medicines Patent Pool Foundation (MPPF)’ to implement ‘Medicines Patent Pool (MPP)’, which aims to improve access to affordable and appropriate HIV medicines in developing countries. MPPF works through voluntary licensing of patents for public health interest, at the same time extending compensation to the innovator pharmaceutical companies.

‘Medicines Patent Pools’:

On April 7, 2011. ‘Intellectual Property Watch’ reported that the ‘Medicines Patent Pools’, an initiative to improve access to HIV drugs through voluntary licenses of patented drugs, have launched a new database of patent information on HIV medicines in developing countries. The database has been developed with the support of the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) and Regional Patent Offices across the world. Intellectual Property Watch

Key issues with the ‘Patent Pools’ concept:
The report from a WHO conference held in April, 2006 ‘Innovation Strategy Today’ indicates that the start-up cost of a ‘Patent Pools’ for vaccines will be economically viable only if more than 25 participants holding relevant patents join the initiative.
Moreover, various types of litigation related to patents, which are being currently witnessed within the global pharmaceutical industry, could also be an impediment in getting more patents in the pool.

Recommended ‘General Principles’ for “Patent Pools”:
International Federation of Pharmaceutical Manufacturers and Associations (IFPMA), Switzerland, suggested the following guidelines for the ‘Patent Pool’ initiatives:
1. Patent pools should be voluntary associations of entities formed without coercion 2. Objectives of any patent pool should be clearly defined 3. Patent pools should complement rather than replace elements of existing intellectual property regimes 4. Rights and obligations of contributors and licensees of contributed rights should be clear 5. Patent pools should reduce transaction costs, and not increase administrative costs, relative to other options such as direct licensing
Conclusion:
There is certainly an urgent need to communicate more on how innovation and IPR could help rather than hinder public health. At the same time all stakeholders of the pharmaceutical industry need to come out with a robust solution to ever increasing problem of improving access to innovative medicines to the ailing population of the world, in the best possible way.
However, these are still very early days, before such a disrupting idea get widely accepted by the global innovators and implemented religiously not just for the ‘public health interest’, across the world, but also to create a sustainable business model to harvest ‘Fortune at the Bottom of the Pyramid’.

Only future will tell us whether or not the ‘Patent Pools’ initiatives become the footprints on the sands of time as the global pharmaceutical industry keeps navigating through the challenges of change.

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.

e-healthcare: A new vista to improve access to quality and affordable healthcare in India

Posted on May 9, 2011 by Tapan Ray

The concept of e-healthcare started germinating in India since 1999, when the ‘Indian Space Research Organization (ISRO)’ initiated its pioneering step towards telemedicine in the country by deploying a SATCOM-based telemedicine network. This network is currently playing a key role in the evolution and development of e-healthcare in the country. ISRO, with its fine blending of application of world class satellite communication technology with modern medical science and information technology (IT), has engaged itself very seriously to ensure availability of quality and affordable specialty healthcare services right at the doorsteps of a vast majority of population living even in the distant and remote places of the rural India.

However, despite telemedicine gaining slow momentum in India, there is no law in place for ethical, affordable and patient friendly use of e-healthcare facilities in the country. Considering its vast scope of improving access to healthcare, cost effectiveness and a convenient ways to deliver e-healthcare services to a very large number of patients, especially, located in the distant locations of the country, the law makers should urgently ensure that this important healthcare service is not misused or abused by unscrupulous elements, in any way.

Very recently, taking into consideration this critical legal requirement the Medical Council of India (MCI) has decided to soon forming a panel to address the ethical issues related to e-healthcare in India.

Delivery of e-healthcare through telemedicine:

The World Health Organization (WHO) has defined telemedicine as follows: “The delivery of healthcare services, where distance is a critical factor, by all healthcare professionals using information and communication technologies for the exchange of valid information for diagnosis, treatment and prevention of disease and injuries, research and evaluation, and for continuing education of healthcare providers, all in the interests of advancing the health of individuals and their communities.”

As stated above, telemedicine is gradually gaining popularity in India, like in many other countries of the world. This emerging e- healthcare service has the potential to meet the unmet needs of the patients located in the far flung areas, by providing access to medical specialists for treatment of even tertiary level of their ailments, without requiring traveling outside their villages or small towns where they reside.

The key objectives of e-healthcare:

1. To provide affordable quality healthcare services even to those places where these are not available due to lack of basic healthcare infrastructure and delivery issues.

2. Speedy electronic transmission of clinical information of both synchronous and asynchronous types, involving voice and data transfer of patients to distantly located experts and get their treatment advice online.

3. To effectively train the medics and the paramedics located in distant places and proper management of healthcare delivery/service systems.

4. Disaster management.

The Process:

The process can be: – ‘Real time’ or synchronous when through a telecommunication link real time interaction between the patients and doctors/experts can take place. This technology can be used even for tele-robotic surgery. – ‘Non-real time’ or asynchronous type when through a telecommunication link, stored diagnostics/medical data and other details of the patients are transmitted to the specialists for off-line assessment and advice at a time of convenience of the specialists.

These processes facilitate access to specialists’ healthcare services by the rural patients and the medical practitioners alike by reducing avoidable travel time and related expenses. At the same time, such interaction would help upgrading the knowledge of rural medical practitioners and paramedics to hone their skill sets.

The Promise:

e-healthcare is capable of taking modern healthcare to remote rural areas using Information Technology (IT), as specialists are mostly located in the cities. As majority of the diseases do not require surgery, e-healthcare would prove to be very conducive to such patients and economical too.

Relevance of e-healthcare in India:

With its over 1.2 billion population and equally huge disease burden, spreading across distant semi-urban and rural areas, where over 70 per cent of the population of the country lives, India should focus on e-healthcare to meet unmet healthcare needs of the common man, at least, located in far-flung areas. e-healthcare, therefore, is very relevant for the country, as it faces a scarcity of both hospitals and medical specialists. In India for every 10,000 of the population just 0.6 doctors are available.

According to the Planning Commission, India is short of 600,000 doctors, 1 million nurses and 200,000 dental surgeons. It is interesting to note that 80 percent of doctors, 75 percent of dispensaries and 60 percent of hospitals, are situated in urban India.

Progress of e-healthcare in India:

Equitable access to healthcare is the overriding goal of the National Health Policy 2002. e-healthcare has a great potential to ensure that the inequities in the access to healthcare services are adequately addressed by the country.

Very encouragingly, a good number of even super-specialty hospitals like, Apollo Group of Hospitals have unfolded the launch plan of ‘Healthcare India Pharmaceutical Registry (HIPAAR)’, which is an electronic drug database for reference by the doctors and patients. Apollo Group feels that HIPAAR module will enable the patients to know whether right medications have been used or not to treat the ailment that the concerned patient is suffering from along with the information of possible adverse effects of the medicines prescribed to them.

Currently, in the dedicated e-healthcare centers of ‘Narayana Hrudayalaya group’ pioneered by Dr Devi Shetty, patients from far-flung areas can have consultations with doctors in Bangalore.

Similarly, Asia Heart Foundation (Kolkata) and Regional Institute of Medical Science (Imphal, Manipur) are currently providing multi-specialty e-healthcare through telemedicine to 10 district hospitals, which will be extended to 75 District Hospitals, shortly. At the same time, some Government hospitals also have started extending e-healthcare through telemedicine facilities, which among others will handle e-transfer of medical data of patients like, X-ray, CT scan and MRI for not only diagnosing the disease, but also for treatment and medical consultation. Department of telemedicine of Sir Ganga Ram Hospital of New Delhi is one such example.

Well reputed cancer hospital of India, Tata Memorial Hospital (TMH) of Mumbai is now well connected with B.Barooah Cancer Institute of Guwahati, Assam and K.L Walawalkar Cancer Center of Chiplun, Maharashtra. Over a short period of time TMH plans to connect with 19 such regional cancer institutes.

Today the Center for Health Market Innovations (CHMI), a global network of partners that seeks to improve the functioning of health markets in developing countries to deliver better results for the poor, profiles more than 55 telemedicine programs globally including 24 in India.

Public Private Partnership:

As the Ministry of Health and Family welfare has now constituted a ‘National Telemedicine Taskforce’, some private healthcare institutions, as mentioned above, and various State Governments like, Tamil Nadu, Andhra Pradesh, Kerala and West Bengal have started taking admirable initiatives to translate the concept of e-healthcare into reality, especially for the rural India. Subsequently, private e-healthcare solution providers have also started coming-up, though in a sporadic manner. Active participation of the civil society and meaningful Public Private Partnership (PPP) projects are essential not only to get engaged in creating awareness for e-healthcare within India, but also to ensure that required blend of a high quality technical and medical manpower that the country currently possesses are effectively utilized to establish India as a pioneering nation and a model to emulate, in the field of e-healthcare.

The market of e-healthcare in India:

Frost & Sullivan (2007) estimated the e-healthcare (telemedicine) market of India at US$3.4 million is expected to record a CAGR of over 21 percent between 2007 and 2014.

More fund required for e-healthcare:

e-healthcare shows an immense potential within the fragile brick and mortar public healthcare infrastructure of India to catapult rural healthcare services, especially secondary and tertiary healthcare, to a different level altogether. Current data indicate that over 278 hospitals in India have already been provided with telemedicine facilities. 235 small hospitals including those in rural areas are now connected to 43 specialty hospitals. ISRO provides the hospitals with telemedicine systems including software, hardware, communication equipment and even satellite bandwidth. The state governments and private hospitals are now required to allocate adequate funds to further develop and improve penetration of Telemedicine facilities in India.

Issues with e-healthcare in India:

– Telemedicine will not be immune to various complicated legal, social, technical and consumer related issues.

- Some government doctors could feel that for e-healthcare they need to work extra hours without commensurate monetary compensation

- The myth created that setting up and running any e-healthcare facility is expensive, needs to be broken, as all the related costs can be easily recovered by a hospital through nominal charges to a large number of patients, who will be willing to avail e-healthcare facilities, especially from distant parts of India.

- Inadequate and uninterrupted availability of power supply could limit proper functioning of the e-healthcare centers.

- High quality of telemedicine related voice and data transfer is of utmost importance. Any compromise in this area could have a significant impact on the treatment outcome of a patient.

- Lack of trained manpower for e-healthcare services needs to be addressed quickly by making it a part of regular medical college curriculum, just as the University of Queensland in Australia has it for their Graduate Certificate in e-Healthcare (GCeH). A pool of competent professionals for e-healthcare services in the country will be a step in the right direction.

- Reimbursement procedure of e-healthcare treatment costs by the medical insurance companies needs to be effectively addressed.

Conclusion:

For an integrated and sustainable healthcare delivery model covering the entire population of the country, a robust e-healthcare strategy is absolutely essential. Three critical success factors for e-Healthcare initiatives may be considered as follows:

A comprehensive government policy
Increasing level of literacy
Power and telecommunications infrastructure

Unlike common perception, for greater effectiveness and better acceptance of any sustainable e-healthcare service project, the focus should be the same or rather a little more on non-technological areas like consumer mindset and competent healthcare providers than technological factors such as biomedical engineering or information technology.

A very large rural population of India living in remote areas could get access to affordable and quality health related services through e-healthcare facilities, which, I reckon, should be made to play a very special and critical role to address the healthcare needs of the common man. With its gradually increasing coverage, it is imperative that required regulatory standards and guidelines for e-healthcare are put in place across the country, sooner. Technological expertise to make e-healthcare successful is already available in India. The pioneering role that ISRO has been playing in this field is still not known to many.

Thus, to make e-healthcare successful, the country needs to create an appropriate groundswell for the same. All powerful and effective ‘Fourth Estate’ of the country should demonstrate greater interest to initiate a healthy discussion on e-healthcare by all stakeholders and play the role of a facilitator to ensure access to quality and affordable healthcare to all the people of 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.

Biologic Medicine: Ushers in a different ‘Mega Race’ for inorganic growth

Posted on May 2, 2011 by Tapan Ray

During the last several years the success of biologics compared to conventional small-molecule drugs to meet the unmet needs of patients, is gradually but surely changing the area of focus of pharmaceutical R&D altogether, making the biotech companies interesting targets for M&A. Over a period of so many years, the small-molecule blockbuster drugs business model made pharmaceuticals a high-margin industry. However, it now appears that the low hanging fruits to make blockbuster drugs have mostly been plucked.

These low hanging fruits involved therapy areas like, anti-ulcerants, anti-lipids, anti-diabetics, cardiovascular, anti-psychotic etc. and their many variants, which were relatively easy R&D targets to manage chronic ailments. Hereafter, the chances of successfully developing drugs for cure of these chronic ailments, with value addition, would indeed be a very tough call.

Deploying expensive resources towards finding a cure for so called ‘chronic diseases’ may also not promise a strong commercial incentive, as the treatment for ulcer, lipid disorders, diabetics, hypertension etc. are currently continues lifelong for a patient and a cure will limit the treatment to a short to medium term period.

Greater promise in biologics:

On the other hand, the bottom-line impact of a successful R&D outcome with safer and effective drugs to treat intractable ailments like,various types of cancer and blood disorders, auto-immune and Central Nervous System (CNS) related diseases, neurological disorders such as Parkinson’s, Myasthenia gravis, Multiple Sclerosis, Alzheimer’s diseases etc., will be huge. It is believed that well targeted drugs of biologic origin could well be successful treatment for such intractable diseases.

The golden opportunity of meeting the unmet needs of the patients with effective biologics, especially in high-growth therapeutics, as mentioned above, has given the M&A activities in the pharma-biotech space an unprecedented thrust.

Biologic versus conventional drugs:

Biologics	Conventional and NME drugs
Large molecules (>5000 molecular weight)	Small molecules (~500 molecular weight)
Bio-technologically produced or isolated from living sources	Chemically synthesized
Complex structure/mixtures (tertiary structure, glycosylated)	Simple well-defined structure
High target specificity	Less target specificity
Generally parenteral administration (e.g., intravenous)	Oral administration possible (pills)

(Source: MoneyTreeTM Report. PWC, 2009)

According to IMS, Biologics contribute around 17% of global pharmaceutical sales and generated a revenue of US$120 billion MAT March 2009. As we see today, gradually more and more global pharmaceutical companies, who used to spend around 15% to 20% of their annual sales in R&D, are channelizing a large part of the same to effectively compete in a fast evolving market of biologics through mainly M&A route. This is also driven by their strategic intent to make good the loss in income from the blockbuster drugs going off patent and at the same time fast dwindling R&D pipeline.

A shift from small molecule based blockbuster model to a biologics-based blockbuster one:

Frost & Sullivan forecasts a shift from small molecules-based blockbuster model to a biologics-based blockbuster one for the global pharmaceutical majors, just as biologics like Enbrel ,Remicade, Avastin, Rituxan and Humira, as mentioned below, have already proved to be money spinners.

The top 10 global brands in 2009:

Rank	Product	Chemical/Biologic	Global Sales US$ Mn
1	Lipitior	Chemical	12,511
2	Plavix	Chemical	9,492
3.	Seretide/Advair	Chemical	7,791
4.	Enbrel	Biologic	6,295
5.	Diovan	Chemical	6,013
6.	Remicade	Biologic	5,924
7.	Avastin	Biologic	5,744
8.	Rituxan	Biologic	5,620
9.	Humira	Biologic	5,559
10.	Seroquel	Chemical	5,121

(Source: EvaluatePharma)

Faster growth of biologics attracting attention of large pharma players:

Currently, faster growth of biologics as compared to conventional new chemical entities is driven by novel technologies and highly targeted approach, the final outcome of which is being more widely accepted by both physicians and patients. The large global pharmaceutical companies are realizing it pretty fast. The type and quality of their recent acquisitions, vindicate this point.

Mega race for biologics and vaccines:

Driven by the above factor, in 2009 Pfizer acquired Wyeth for US $68 billion, Roche acquired Genentech for US $ 47 billion and Merck acquired Schering-Plough for US $ 41 billion. Only the above three M&A are valued more than US $ 150 billion and that too at a time of global financial meltdown.

Acquisition of Wyeth enabled Pfizer to expand its product-mix with vaccines, animal health and consumer products businesses and at the same time leveraging from Wyeth’s biologics capability.

Similarly, Merck got tempted to acquire Schering-Plough mainly because of latter’s rich R&D pipeline with biologics.

Roche, which was basically a pharmaceutical company, post-acquisition of Genentech, became a major bio-pharmaceutical company with a great promise to deliver in the years ahead.

Other M&As, which would signify a shift toward the growing space for biologics are the acquisition of MedImmune by AstraZeneca and Insmed by Merck and the recent bid of Sanofi-Aventis for Genzyme.

Faster growth of biologics:

As mentioned above, despite patent cliff, biologics continue to contribute better than small molecules to overall growth of the R&D based global pharmaceutical industry. Most of these biologics are sourced either through acquisition or collaborative arrangements.

Currently cash strapped biotech companies with molecules ready for human clinical trials or with target molecules in the well sought after growth areas like, monoclonal antibodies, vaccines, cell or gene therapies, therapeutic protein hormones, cytokines and tissue growth factors, etc. are becoming attractive acquisition targets, mainly by large pure pharmaceutical companies with deep pockets.

Another M&A model:

Besides mega race for mega acquisitions, on the other hand, relatively smaller pharmaceutical players have started acquiring venture-backed biotech companies to enrich their product pipelines with early-stage drugs at a much lesser cost. For example, with the acquisition of Calistoga for US $ 600 million and venture-backed Arresto Biosciences and CGI Pharmaceuticals, Gilead known for its HIV drugs, expanded into blood cancer, solid tumor and inflammatory diseases. In 2009 the same Gilead acquired CV Therapeutics for US $1.4billion to build a portfolio for cardiovascular drugs.

Smaller biotech companies, because of their current size do not get engaged in very large deals, unlike the top pharma players, but make quick, decisive and usually successful deals.

Another commercial advantage for biologics – lesser generic competition :

After patent expiry of a New Chemical Entity (NCE), innovators’ brands become extremely vulnerable to cut throat generic competition with as much as 90% price erosion, as these small molecules are relatively easy to replicate by many generic manufacturers and the process of getting their regulatory approval is not as stringent as biosimilar drugs in most of the markets of the world.

On the other hand biologics, which involve difficult, complex and expensive biological processes for development together with stringent regulatory requirements for getting marketing approval of biosimilar drugs especially in the developed markets of the world like, EU and USA, offer some significant brand protection from generic competition for quite some time, even after patent expiry.

It is for this reason, brands like the following ones are expected to go strong for some more time to come, without any significant competition from biosimilar drugs:

Brand	Company	Launch date
Rituxan	Roche/Biogen idec	1997
Herceptin	Roche	1998
Remicade	Centocor/J&J	1998
Enbrel	Amgen/Pfizer	1998

Change of appetite:

In my view, the voracious appetite of large pharmaceutical companies for inorganic growth through mega M&As, will ultimately subside for various compelling reasons. Instead, smaller biotech companies, especially with products in Phase I or II of clinical trials without further resource to take them to subsequent stages of development, will be prime targets for acquisition by the pharma majors at an attractive valuation.

Conclusion:

Although the large pharma majors are experimenting with pure biotech companies in terms of acquisitions and alliances, it will be interesting to see the long term ‘DNA Compatibility’ between these companies’ business models, organization and work/employee culture and market outlook to improve their overall global business performance, significantly. Only future will tell us whether or not just restructuring of the R&D set up of companies like, Pfizer, Merck, Roche and perhaps Sanofi-aventis at a later date, helps synergizing the overall R&D productivity of the merged companies.

In this context, Frost & Sullivan had commented: “Widely differing cultures at Roche and Genentech could make retaining top scientists a huge challenge. Roche is Swiss and a stickler for precision and time, while Genentech has a more ‘Californian attitude’ and is laid back and efficient in its work”.

Though the long-term overall financial impact of the ‘mega race for mega deals’, as mentioned above, is less clear to me, acquisition of biotech companies, especially well thought through smaller ones, seems to be a pretty smart move towards inorganic growth by the global innovator companies.

By: Tapan J Ray

Could M&As in Pharma create significant stakeholder value?

Posted on April 25, 2011 by Tapan Ray

At the very outset, I pay my homage to the departed soul of our industry colleague respected Amar Lulla, former joint managing director of Cipla, who passed away on Friday, April 22, 2011 after a prolonged battle against cancer.

As we know, “Merger and Acquisition (M&A)” is an inorganic growth tool of any business. In this model growth in business operations arise from value creation through mergers or takeovers of other companies, rather than from increase in the company’s own existing business activities.

On April 13, 2011, quoting a study released by Burrill & Co, a noted life sciences investment firm, ‘Fierce Pharma’ reported that “drug makers’ deal making over the past 10 years has utterly and completely failed to build value in the industry. Big Pharma has actually lost almost $1 trillion in value during the past decade.”

Big Pharmas lost value in the past decade through deal making:

Burrill argued: “The drug industry’s 17 most active buyers had a combined market value of $1.57 trillion at the end of 2000. By the end of 2010, that value had shrunk to $1.04 trillion–notwithstanding the $425 billion in acquisitions these companies made during the decade with a total loss of $955 billion.”

The report commented that global pharma majors could not make up non-delivery of innovative products through these acquisitions.

M&As triggered by in-market blockbuster products, were successful in the past:

It was observed that those M&As, which were triggered by in-market blockbuster products were successful in the past. Like for example:

Year	M&A	Product/Products
2000	Pfizer and Warner Lambert	Lipitor
2006	Eli Lilly-ICOS	Cialis
2008	Eli Lilly- ImClone	Erbitux

However, when a company was acquired for products in development or R&D pipelines, it was observed that acquirer could not derive full benefits of their respective inorganic growth plans, as many of those projects did not fructify or could not be continued in the long run for various different reasons. I am not trying to go into those details in this article.

It is usually believed that healthcare companies with diversified interests along with pharmaceuticals and biotech business, like, diagnostic, devices and generic pharmaceuticals encountered much lesser growth pangs in the past. I reckon, it is for this reason, companies like, Abbott, J&J, Roche and Novartis registered overall better business performance than their pure pharmaceutical business counterparts like, Merck, Pfizer etc.

Only future will tell us whether high takeover prices, such as US$ 68 bn paid by Pfizer for Wyeth or US$ 46 bn of Roche for Genentech or US$ 41 bn of Merck for Schering-Plough, mainly to acquire the drug pipelines of the respective companies, can ultimately be justified or not. At this stage, it is indeed extremely difficult to quantify the transaction value of phase III drugs that Pfizer, Roche and Merck acquired with these mega deals.

However, about a couple of years ago ‘Forbes’ in its article titled, “Will Pfizer’s Merger Hurt Innovation?” published in January 26, 2009 commented as follows:

“Between 1998 and now, Pfizer has launched only one medicine with annual sales surpassing $1 billion, despite ploughing more than $60 billion into research and development. That drug, the pain med Lyrica, was already in development at Warner-Lambert when Pfizer bought it.”

Other significant global M&A initiatives in 2010 were as follows:

Global Companies	Value (US $ billion)
Sepracor by Dainippon Sumitomo	2.6
77% of Alcon (the eye care unit of Nestle) by Novartis	50
Millipore by Merck KGA	6
OSI Pharma by Astellas	4
King Pharma by Pfizer	3.6
BioVex by Amgen	1
Ratiopharm by Teva	5

In addition, work is in progress for some more M&A initiatives, like the hostile bid of US $ 20 billion of Sanofi Aventis for Genzyme in 2011. J&J’s offer of US $2.3 billion for vaccines of Crucell; Valeant’s hostile bid for Cephalon of US $ 5.7 billion, and J&J’s talk with Synthes for an acquisition with US $20 billion.

Emerging markets: the Eldorado:

At the same time, IMS Health reports that emerging markets will register a growth rate of 14% to 17% by 2014, significantly driven by generic pharmaceuticals, when the developed markets will be growing by 3% to 6% during this period. It is forecasted that the global pharmaceutical industry will record a turnover of US$1.1 trillion by this time.

Probably prompted by this overall market scenario, the global pharmaceutical majors are still trying to keep their heads above water through deal making and various collaborative initiatives. India, being one of the fastest growing global pharmaceutical markets, has also started experiencing this consolidation process.

Real consolidation process in India commenced in 2006: The consolidation process in India started gaining momentum from the year 2006 with the acquisition of Matrix Lab by Mylan, although 2009 witnessed the biggest merger in the Pharmaceutical Industry of India, thus far, in value terms, when the third largest drug maker of Japan, Daiichi Sankyo acquired 63.9% stake of Ranbaxy Laboratories of India for US $4.6 billion.
This was widely believed to be a win-win deal for both the companies with Daiichi Sankyo leveraging the cost arbitrage of Ranbaxy effectively, while Ranbaxy benefiting from the innovative products range of Daiichi Sankyo. This deal also established Daiichi Sankyo as one of the leading pharmaceutical generic manufacturers of the world, making the merged company a force to reckon with, in the space of both innovative and generic pharmaceuticals business.
Another mega acquisition soon followed:
In May 2010, the Pharma major in the US Abbott catapulted itself to number one position in the Indian Pharmaceutical Market (IPM) by acquiring the branded generics business of Piramal Healthcare with whopping US$3.72 billion. Abbott acquired Piramal Healthcare at around 9 times of its sales multiple against around 4 times of the same paid by Daiichi Sankyo.

According to Michael Warmuth, senior vice-president, established products of Abbott the sales turnover of Abbott in India, after this acquisition, will grow from its current around US$ 480 million to US$2.5 billion by the next decade.

Was the valuation right for the acquired companies?
Abbott had valued formulations business of Piramal Healthcare at about eight times of sales, which is almost twice of what Japan’s Daiichi Sankyo paid for its US$4.6 billion purchase of a controlling stake in India’s Ranbaxy Laboratories in June 2008.

On the valuation, Warmuth of Abbott has reportedly commented “If you want the best companies you will pay a premium; however, we feel it was the right price.”

This is not surprising at all, as we all remember Daiichi Sankyo commented that the valuation was right for Ranbaxy, even when they wrote off US$3.5 billion on its acquisition.
In my opinion, considering the fact that not too many attractive acquisition targets are available within the domestic pharmaceutical industry, the valuation of any well performed Indian Pharmaceutical Company will continue to remain high, at least in the short to medium term… and why not, when the domestic pharmaceutical industry is growing so well, consistently?

M&As in India from 2006 to 2010:

Year	Indian Companies	Multinational Companies	Value ($Mn)	Type
2006
	Matrix Labs	Mylan	736	Acquisition
	Dabur Pharma	Fresenius Kabi	219	Acquisition
	Ranbaxy Labs	Daiichi Sankyo	4,600	Acquisition
	Shantha Biotech	Sanofi-aventis	783	Acquisition
2009
	Orchid Chemicals	Hospira	400	Business Buyout
2010
	Piramal Healthcare	Abbott	3,720	Business Buyout
	Paras Pharma	Reckitt Benkiser	726	Acquisition

Collaborative deals in India from 2009 to 2011:

Year	Multinational Companies	Indian Companies
2009
	GSK	Dr. Reddy’s Lab
	Pfizer	Aurobindo Pharma
2010
	AstraZeneca	Torrent
	Abbott	Cadila Healthcare
	Pfizer	Strides Arcolab
	AstraZeneca	Aurobindo Pharma
	Pfizer	Biocon
2011
	Bayer	Cadila Healthcare
	MSD	Sun Pharma

The Key driver for acquisition of large Indian companies:
Such strategies highlight the intent of the global players to quickly grab sizeable share of the highly fragmented IPM – the second fastest growing and one of the most important emerging markets of the world.
If there is one most important key driver for such consolidation process in India, I reckon it will undoubtedly be the strategic intent of the global companies to dig their heel deep into the fast growing Indian branded generic market, contributing over 99% of the IPM. The same process is being witnessed in other fast growing emerging pharmaceutical markets, as well, the growth of which is basically driven by the branded generic business.
Important characteristics to target the branded generic companies:
To a global acquirer the following seem to be important requirements while shortlisting its target companies:
• Current sales and profit volume of the domestic branded generic business • Level of market penetration and the rate of growth of this business • Strength, spread and depth of the product portfolio • Quality of the sales and marketing teams • Valuation of the business
Faster speed of consolidation process could slow down the speed of evolution of the ‘generics pharmaceutical industry’ in India: Though quite unlikely, if the moderate valuation of large Indian companies starts attracting more and more global pharmaceutical majors, the speed of evolution of the ‘local generic pharmaceutical industry’ in the country could slow down, despite entry of newer smaller players in the market.

The global companies will then acquire a cutting edge on both sides of the pharmaceutical business, discovering and developing innovative patented medicines while maintaining a dominant presence in the fast growing emerging branded generics market across the world.
An alarm bell in the Indian Market for a different reason:
It has been reported that being alarmed by these developments, some industry insiders feel, “Lack of available funding is the main reason for the recent spurt in the sale of stakes in domestic companies”.
They have reportedly urged the Government to adequately fund the research and development (R&D) initiatives of the local Pharmaceutical Companies to ensure a safeguard against further acquisition of large Indian generic players by the global pharmaceutical majors. It is a fact that the domestic Indian companies do not have adequate capital to fund cost-intensive R&D projects in India even after having a significant cost arbitrage.
Will such consolidation process now gain momentum in India?
In my view, it will take some more time for acquisitions of large domestic Indian pharmaceutical companies by the Global Pharma majors to gain momentum in the country. In the near future, we shall rather witness more strategic collaborations between Indian and Global pharmaceutical companies, especially in the generic space, as indicated above.
The number of high profile M&As of Indian pharma companies will significantly increase, as I mentioned earlier, when the valuation of the domestic companies appears quite attractive to the global pharma majors. This could happen, as the local players face more cut-throat competition both in Indian and international markets, squeezing their profit margin.
It won’t be a cake walk either…not just yet:
Be that as it may, establishing dominance in the highly fragmented and fiercely competitive IPM will not be a ‘cakewalk’ for any company, not even for the global pharmaceutical majors. Many Indian branded generic players are good marketers too. Companies like, Cipla, Sun Pharma, Alkem, Mankind, Dr.Reddy’s Laboratories (DRL) have proven it time and again, over a period of so many years.
The acquisition of Ranbaxy by Daiichi Sankyo did not change anything in the competition front. Currently the market share of Abbott, post M&A, including Solvay and Piramal Healthcare, comes to just around 6.2% followed by Cipla at 5.5% (Source: AIOCD). This situation in no way signifies domination by Abbott in the IPM, far from creating any oligopolistic pharmaceutical market in India.
Thus the pharmaceutical market in the country will continue to remain fragmented with cut-throat competition from the existing and the newer tough minded, innovative and determined local branded generic players having cost arbitrage, cerebral power and untiring spirit of competitiveness with a burning desire to win.
Simultaneously, some of the domestic pharmaceutical companies are in the process of creating a sizeable Contract Research and Manufacturing Services (CRAMS) sector to service the global pharmaceutical market.
Conclusion:
In my view, it does not make long term business sense to pay such unusually high prices for the branded generics business of any Indian company. Besides the report of Burrill & Co., we also have with us examples of some of the Indian pharmaceutical acquisitions in the overseas market are not working satisfactorily as the regulatory requirements for the low cost generics drugs were changed in those countries.
Most glaring example is the acquisition of the German generic company Betapharm by DRL for US$ 570 million in 2006. It was reported that like Piramals, a significant part of the valuation of Betapharm was for its trained sales team. However, being caught in a regulatory quagmire, the ultimate outcome of this deal turned sour for DRL.
Could similar situation arise in India, as well? Who knows? What happens then to such expensive acquisitions, if for example, prescriptions by generic names are made mandatory by the Government within the country, despite intensive lobbying efforts?

Be that as it may, in India also, a study like, ‘Burrill Report” could be quite useful to ascertain whether or not the deal making of global and local drug majors in the country over a ten year period commencing from 2006 onwards, has succeeded to create desired stakeholder value.

By: Tapan J Ray

‘Frugal Innovation’ in Healthcare: Ahoy!

Posted on April 18, 2011 by Tapan Ray

Patented new products have been the prime growth driver of the research based pharmaceutical companies, the world over. Probably because of this reason the world has seen over a period of time about four different molecules of H2 Blockers and six different molecules of proton pump inhibitors to treat peptic ulcers, nine varieties of statins to treat lipid disorders, ten variants of calcium channel blockers to treat hypertension, three new compounds of similar drugs to address erectile dysfunction and the list could go on. Most of these molecules attained the blockbuster status, backed by cutting edge innovative marketing strategies.

Whether all these patented molecules met significant unmet needs of the patients could well be a contentious point. However, the key point is that all these drugs did help fueling growth of the global pharmaceutical industry very significantly, including our own Indian Pharmaceutical companies, though through immaculate copying during pre-product patent regime of before January, 2005.

Since last few years, because of various reasons, the number of market launch of such patented products has greatly reduced. To add fuel to the fire, 2011-12 will witness patent expiries of many blockbuster drugs, including the top revenue grosser of the world, depleting the growth potential of many large research-based global pharmaceutical companies.

Blockbuster drug ‘Business Model’ is no longer sustainable:

The blockbuster model of growth engine of the innovator companies effectively relies on a limited number of ‘winning horses’ to achieve the business goal and meeting the Wall Street expectations. In 2007, depleting pipeline of the blockbuster drugs hit a new low in the developed markets of the world. It is estimated that around U.S. $ 140 billion of annual turnover from blockbuster drugs will get almost shaved-off due to patent expiry by the year 2016. IMS reported that in 2010 more than U.S. $ 30 billion was adversely impacted because of patent expiry. Another set of blockbuster drugs with similar value turnover will go off patent in 2011. It will not be out of context to mention, that the year before last around U.S. $ 27 billion worth of patented drugs had reportedly gone off-patent.

Decline in R&D productivity with a thin silver lining though:

The decline in R&D productivity has not been due to lack of investments. It has been reported that between 1993 and 2004, R&D expenditure by the pharmaceutical industry rose from U.S. $ 16 billion to around U.S. $ 40 billion. However, during the same period the number of applications for New Chemical Entities (NCEs) filed annually to the U.S. FDA grew by just 7%.

It was reported that total global expenditure for pharmaceutical R&D reached U.S. $ 70 billion in 2007 and is estimated to be around U.S $ 90 billion by the end of the year just gone by. 75% of this expenditure was incurred by the U.S alone. It is interesting to note that only 22 NMEs received marketing approval by the US FDA during this period against 53 in 1996, when expenditure was almost less than half of what was incurred in 2007 towards R&D.

The silver linings:

There seem to be following two silver linings in the present scenario, as reported by IMS:

Number of Phase I and Phase II drugs in the pipeline is increasing.
R&D applications for clinical trials in the U.S. rose by 11.6% to a record high of 662 last year.

Funding high cost R&D will be a challenge:

Patent expiry of so many blockbusters during this period will obviously fuel the growth of generic pharmaceutical business, especially in the large developed markets of the world. The market exclusivity for 180 days being given to the first applicant with a paragraph 4 certification in the U.S. is, indeed, a very strong incentive, especially for the generic pharmaceutical companies of India.

In a scenario like this, funding of high cost R&D projects is becoming a real challenge.

Cut in R&D Expenditure has already begun:

Following its acquisition of Wyeth in 2008, Pfizer announced plans to reduce their R&D budget from the US $11 billion to between $8 and $8.5 billion by 2012. Similarly, GSK also announced a reduction of £500 million from its costs by 2012 and half of these costs are from their R&D budget.

As reported by Chemistry World in January 2010, “AstraZeneca announced its plans to reduce around 1800 R&D positions as part of a restructuring process that will see 8000 jobs go as it looks to reduce its costs by $1 billion a year by 2014”.

The time for ‘Frugal Innovation’:

In a new and fast evolving scenario when the erstwhile ‘Blockbuster Drugs Business Model’ with commensurate huge R&D spends does no longer seem to be a practical proposition. Unmet needs in the healthcare space should now be met with cost efficient ‘Frugal Innovation’, which has already dawned in the healthcare space of India.

April 15, 2010 issue of ‘The Economist’ in an article titled, “First break all the rules – The charms of frugal innovation” has described some of health related ‘Frugal Innovations’ as follows:

Bangalore Center of General Electric (GE) has come out with a low cost hand-held electrocardiogram (ECG) called ‘Mac 400’, which has reduced the cost of an ECG test to just US $1 per patient.
Tata Consultancy Services (TCS) has come out with lower-tech, yet robust, portable and relatively cheap water filter, which uses rice husks to purify water. This water filter could provide even to a large family an abundant supply of bacteria-free water for an initial investment of about US $24 and a recurring expense of about US $4 for a new filter every few months. Tata Chemicals, which is making the devices, is planning to produce 1m over the next year and hopes for an eventual market of 100m.

11^th Five Year Plan of India and ‘Frugal Innovation’:

The panel set up for the appraisal of the 11^th Five Year Plan of India observed that innovation needs to be “inclusive” and “frugal”.

To accelerate growth of the nation and to meet the unmet needs particularly in healthcare and education, besides others, India needs more ‘frugal innovation’ that produces more ‘frugal cost’ and high quality products and services, quite affordable to the common man of the country.

It also highlighted that a paradigm which bases its assessment of innovativeness on the quantum of expensive inputs deployed, like the numbers of scientists, expenditures on R&D etc. will always tend to produce expensive innovations because the cost of innovation must be recovered in the prices of the products it produces.

The above appraisal report goes on saying:

“This is indeed the dilemma of the ‘innovative’ companies in the pharmaceutical industry. They find it economically difficult to justify development of low cost solutions for ailments that affect poor people.”

‘National Innovation Council’ moots ‘inclusive growth’ through innovation:

To encourage the culture and process of ‘inclusive growth’ through innovation in India, Mr. Sam Pitroda , the Chairman of the ‘National Innovation Council’ had mooted a proposal for creation of a Rs 1,000 Crore corpus in the country, where the Government of India should initially take 10% to 20% share of the corpus and then its equities will be bought by the public.

Conclusion:

The R&D model of companies like GE and TCS, as mentioned above, are taking the affordability of the common man as a starting point and then working backwards to satisfy unmet needs of the people, just as what Tata Motors did for the ‘Nano Car’ in India.

In an environment of continuous diminishing return from the big ticket R&D expenditure of the global pharmaceutical companies, across the world, I sincerely hope and pray that the world witnesses increasing number of cost effective ‘Frugal Innovation’ in healthcare, including medicines, sooner than later…just for the sake of humanity.

By: Tapan J Ray

Deadly ‘Superbugs’: The larger issues

Posted on April 11, 2011 by Tapan Ray

Every year, April 7 is observed as ‘World Health Day’ across the globe. This year, 2011, is no exception. However, interestingly considering the increasing debate on the antibiotic resistance ‘Superbug’, the theme of this year has been very aptly coined as “No action today, no cure tomorrow”.

April 2011 issue of ‘The Lancet’ reported again the presence of drug-resistant bacteria NDM-1 in the public water system of Delhi.

Some observers in this area commented that this report is clearly aimed at raising alarm by recycling an old claim that has been found to be contentious, clearly suggesting indirectly that foreigners who visit India for medical and cosmetic treatments may carry back the deadly microbes with them to their respective countries.

The new report attempts to establish that the ‘Superbug NDM-1′ is no longer a hospital-born infection but can also spread through contaminated water and food. Understandably, this has raised a hue and cry in India.

Ministry of Health ridicules ‘The Lancet’ April study:

Last week the Ministry of Health rejected the above study observing that it was not only conducted with “motivated intentions”, but is illegal too. As transport of water samples for such study out of the country requires prior permission from regulatory authorities. The authenticity of the samples also appears to be questionable, as these were reportedly to have been collected by a TV reporter.

However, just a day after the government rejected ‘The Lancet’ report, it formed a committee to look into the findings of the study, as announced by Dr R K Srivastava, Director General of Health Services, Government of India.

However, ‘The Lancet’ stands by this study report.

August 2010 report of ‘The Lancet’:

One will perhaps recall that on August 11, 2010, “The Lancet” published similar article highlighting that a new antibiotics-resistant “Superbug” originating from Pakistan has taken its first life. This happened when a patient brought to a hospital in Belgium died in June 2010 after having met with a car accident in Pakistan, where from the person got infected with this “Superbug”.

The above article was written by a team of international researchers including an Indian. The study elaborated that a new variety of enzyme named after India’s national capital New Delhi, called, “New Delhi Metallo beta lactamase” in short “NDM 1” turns any bacteria into a deadly “Superbug”, making it resistant to all types of antibiotics, leaving virtually no cure in sight. This deadly “Superbug” was reported to have already reached the United Kingdom through patients who acquired it from the hospitals in India and has the potential to precipitate serious health issues across the world. “The New Delhi Superbug” was discovered even earlier: The ‘The Lancet’ report generated a sharp reaction in India and from some of its authors regarding its authenticity. Some experts even termed this study as the ‘Western plot to undermine medical tourism in India’. A leading daily of India reported, “Indian medical journal first documented Superbug”. It stated that that the first ever formal documentation of this ‘Superbug’ was made in 2009 at the P.D. Hinduja National Hospital and Medical Research Centre located in Mumbai. This finding was published in the ‘Journal of the Association of Physicians in India (JAPI’) in March 2010. The reason for the emergence of the ‘Superbug’ was attributed to the ‘worrisome outcome of the indiscriminate use of antibiotics’. “Unfair to blame the country for the ‘New Delhi’ Superbug”: Reacting to the August article, Indian health authorities opined at that time, “It is unfortunate that this new bug, which is an environmental thing, has been attached to a particular country.” The reasons being, “Several superbugs are surviving in nature and they have been reported from countries like Greece, Israel, the U.S., Britain, Brazil and there is no public health threat and no need to unnecessarily sensationalize it”.

Some experts, however, feel, “such drug resistant pathogens, is a global phenomenon and is preventable by sound infection prevention strategies which are followed in any good hospital.”

Based on this report the ‘National Center for Disease Control of India’ started working on guidelines for appropriately recording these types of nosocomial (hospital acquired) infections.

“Superbug Hype” and Medical Tourism:

Many people of both India and Pakistan felt since then that in absence of an effective response by the health authorities, especially in India, the fast evolving Medical Tourism initiatives providing medical services ranging from complicated cardiovascular, orthopedic and cerebrovascular surgery to other life-threatening illnesses, may get adversely impacted.

The ‘blame game’: Experts have opined that overuse, imprudent or irrational use of antibiotics without any surveillance protocol is the root cause for emergence of “Superbugs”, though some Indian parliamentarians had termed the August article as the propaganda by some vested interests.

It has been alleged that the study was funded by the Wellcome Trust and Wyeth, the two global pharmaceutical companies who produce antibiotics to treat such conditions, together with the European Union.

In this context it is worth mentioning that ‘The Lancet’ article of August 2010 in its disclosures says:

“Kartikeyan K Kumarasamy has received a travel grant from Wyeth… David M Livermore has received conference support from numerous pharmaceutical companies, and also holds shares in AstraZeneca, Merck, Pfizer, Dechra, and GlaxoSmithKline, and, as Enduring Attorney, manages further holdings in GlaxoSmithKline and Eco Animal Health. All other authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.” Not a first time reported incidence: This type of situation has indeed some precedents. When ‘MRSA’ was reported for the first time, it caused similar scare. However, this time many experts feel that it is too early to conclude whether or not ‘NDM-1’ will eventually prove to be more dangerous than ‘MRSA’. Several such “Superbugs”, as stated earlier, have already been reported from countries like Greece, Israel, USA, UK, and Brazil. As I know, in the battle against infectious diseases involving both the scientists and the bacteria, the later had to succumb mostly, in the long run. ‘NDM-1′ perhaps will be no exception. All concerned must continue to make it happen, not by mere wishful thinking but by establishing a strong procedural mechanism to keep a careful vigil on the reasons for emergence of drug resistant bacterial strains in the country.

The World Health Organization (WHO) perspective:

On Saturday, August 21, 2010 the WHO commented, “while multi-drug resistant bacteria are not new and will continue to appear, this development requires monitoring and further study to understand the extent and modes of transmission, and to define the most effective measures for control”.

International Cooperation:

US based Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), which is known as one of the world’s best-known institute for handling ‘Superbugs’, will help India in its capacity building efforts to better detect pathogens like NDM-1.

In India, the National Center for Disease Control (NCDC) with state of art facilities is expected to commence working from the next year. The facility is expected to be equipped with highly-advanced bio-safety level-II and BSL-III laboratories and would cost around Rs 382.41 Crore.

The larger issue:

The larger issue is that antibiotic resistance is fast becoming a global health concern as drug-resistant bacteria can turn a simple infection life threatening. According to the World Health Organization, ‘some 440,000 new cases of tuberculosis resistant to different types of drugs were detected last year in 60 countries across the world.’

Thus the emergence of drug-resistant ‘Superbug’ is being seen by many experts as a natural process of evolution of organisms. However, it goes without saying that indiscriminate use of antibiotics is hastening this deadly process.

R&D focus shifted more towards chronic illnesses:

Besides the reasons attributed to emergence of such “Superbugs”, as discussed earlier, one more important issue I could foresee in today’s environment compared to the past decades.

This issue possibly lies in the drastic shift in focus of pharmaceutical R&D from discovery of novel drugs for short term treatment of infectious diseases to discovery of potentially greater money spinner drugs for life-long treatment of non-infectious chronic illnesses like, metabolic disorders (diabetes), hypertension, cardiovascular diseases, psychiatric disorders, cancer, vaccines etc. This shift in the R&D focus has obviously been prompted by the tilt in the prevalence of the disease pattern towards the same direction. As a consequence, one notices hardly any significant and novel molecules in the research pipelines of either global or local pharmaceutical companies to treat antibiotic-resistant infections.

As reported by the ‘Infectious Diseases Society of America’ between 1983 and 1987 sixteen new patented antibiotics were approved by the US FDA, while from 2003 to March 2011 only seven patented antibiotics were launched in the international market.

It is understandably not an ‘either/or’ situation so far as R&D target molecules are concerned. However, as we all know, in life-threatening conditions both types of drugs have their respective places to save precious lives.

Conclusion:

Let the global innovators ponder over the issue for newer antibiotics to counter the emerging ‘Superbugs’.

In India, the Ministry of Health should consider strictly implementing the measures suggested by the task force set up last year to prevent indiscriminate use of antibiotics. Such measures include a ban on sale of antibiotics without prescriptions and simultaneously regular audits of prescriptions of the doctors to stop irrational use of such drugs.

The need of the hour is a well-orchestrated effort by the Government, members of the civil society and the medical fraternity to have full control on this growing menace, through tangible, prudent and truly patient-friendly action .

By: Tapan J Ray

Tapan Ray in ‘Focus Reports’, March 2011

Posted on April 4, 2011 by Tapan Ray

FR: Our last report on India dates back to 2006, right after the Patent Law was passed. What developments have you seen happening in the industry since then?

TR: There has been a paradigm shift with the Product Patent Regime coming in place in 2005. The era from 1970 to 2005 has been a very successful era of reverse engineering, when Indian manufacturers were copying and marketing innovative products in India at a fraction of their international price. Nevertheless, this also required talent, for which India had brilliant process chemists. However, the country eventually realized that reverse engineering model would not truly serve the longer term advancement of the economy in creating a conducive ecosystem to foster innovation. This realization process started in 1990 and was reinforced after signing the WTO Agreement in 1995. After the ten-year transition period, the patent law came into force in January 2005.

Since around 2005 Indian companies, which had mainly been relying on cost efficient processes, started investing in the drug discovery research. There are now at least 10 Indian companies engaged in basic research, while around 32 New Chemical Entities (NCEs) are at various stages of development.

This significant step that the country has taken so far, could not have been possible without a conscious decision to move away from the paradigm of replication to the new paradigm of innovation. More importantly, this shift has not happened at the cost of fast growing generic pharmaceutical industry in the country. Branded generics continue to grow rapidly in the new paradigm.

Today, branded generics constitute over 99% of the domestic pharmaceutical market. Of course, according to McKinsey (2007), the share of patented medicines is expected to increase to 10% by 2015. Even in that scenario 90% of the market will still constitute with branded generics in value terms.

FR: At the same time, companies are still only spending some 4% of their revenues on R&D, while internationally these numbers amount up to 12%. Many of the people in the industry seem to still see the future of India for the next 10 years to remain in manufacturing. Is innovation really the story of India right now?

TR: As I mentioned earlier, around 32 NCEs are at various stages of development from pre-clinical to Phase III. Thus, what Indian companies have achieved since 2005, is, indeed remarkable. If you now look at the investments made by the Indian pharmaceutical companies in R&D, as a percentage of turnover, you will notice an ascending trend. Though the R&D ecosystem in India cannot be compared with the developed world just yet, India is catching up.

FR: In some previous interviews we have conducted, concerns were raised over the Indian industry, saying that the local companies are selling off to international players. What is your take on this?

TR: In India, we all express a lot of sentiments and are generally emotional in nature. These are not bad qualities by any standard. However, such expressions should ideally be supported by hard facts. Otherwise these expressions cannot be justified.

Consolidation process within the industry is a worldwide phenomenon and is also taking place in India. One of the apprehensions of such consolidation process in India is that drug prices would go up, as a consequence. In my view, all such apprehensions should be judged by what has already happened in our country by now, in this area.

One example we can cite is the Ranbaxy-Daiichi-Sankyo deal, an acquisition which has not at all led to an increase in Ranbaxy’s product prices. Similarly, the acquisition of India-based Shantha Biotech by the French pharmaceutical major, Sanofi-Aventis did not lead to any increase in product prices either. It is difficult to make out how could possibly the drug prices go up when we have an effective national price regulator called National Pharmaceutical Pricing Authority (NPPA) in India? Currently, 100% of the pharmaceutical market in the country is regulated by NPPA in one way or the other.

India is currently having a drug policy which came into force way back in 1995. As per this drug policy, any company which increases its product price which are outside price control, by more than 10% in a year, will be called for an explanation by the NPPA. Without a satisfactory explanation, the concerned product – not the product category – will be brought under price control, that too for good. In addition, intensive cut-throat competition has made pharmaceutical product prices in India the cheapest in the world, even lower than in the neighboring countries such as Bangladesh, Pakistan and Sri Lanka. Moreover, if the potential to increase prices exists, why would any company wait for an acquisition in a highly fragmented pharmaceutical market in India?

Many of the concerns are, therefore, difficult to justify due to lack of factual data. In fact, on the contrary, the presence of multinational pharmaceutical companies in India is good for the country. These companies with their international expertise and resources would help India to build capacity in terms of training and creating a world-class talent pool. Indian companies, therefore, should consider to take more and more initiatives to partner and collaborate with these MNCs to create a win-win situation for India.

Another key advantage is in the area of market penetration. Market penetration through value-added innovative marketing has happened and has been happening all over the world; India should not let go this opportunity.

FR: In that case, how do you feel about some of the proposed protectionist measures such as a 49% cap on Foreign Direct Investment (FDI)?

TR: This may, once again, be related to the strong local sentiments. India needs financial reforms and wants to attract more and more FDI. The country wants to liberalize the process of FDI and, to the best of my knowledge, any step to move backward in this area should not be contemplated.

It is also worth mentioning that the acquisitions that have taken place were not of any hostile nature. Both Indian companies and MNCs have their own sets of skills, competencies and best practices. Both cost revenue and value synergy through such consolidation process could be made beneficial for the country.

Without commenting on any specific cases, I believe India has taken significant steps to encourage and protect innovation by putting in place the product patent Act in 2005. However, there are some additional steps that the Government should take to further strengthen the process, such as fast-track courts that can quickly decide on the cases of patent infringements. Another example is that when any company will apply for marketing approval for a product, the regulator will upload the same on its website. This is an easy way for other players to detect patent infringement and start taking counter-measures at an early stage. These are examples of steps that can be taken to create a proper ecosystem without amending the law.

FR: You mentioned the paradigm shift towards innovation earlier, to some extent a similar path as China. How innovative has India become in this respect and is it sufficient in terms of clinical trials and other related aspects of the sector?

TR: With regards to attracting FDI in areas such as R&D and clinical trials, India at present is far behind China. The reason for this, as said earlier, is that the country should try to analyse why the innovator companies are not preferring India to China in these areas. Simultaneously, there is a need to assess the expectations of the innovative companies from India in various areas of IPR. One such factor that is bothering the global innovative companies is the absence of regulatory data protection in India. The Government should seriously ponder over this need and take active steps towards this direction as was proposed by ” Satwant Reddy Committee in 2007.”

FR: In your view, what is the industry going to look like in the coming years?

TR: I do not expect a radical shift in the way the Pharmaceutical Industry will be operating in the next few years. Changes will take place gradually and, perhaps, less radically. The increase of the share of patented medicines to 10% of the market share by 2015 as was forecasted by McKinsey in 2007, in my opinion, is rather ambitious. We will certainly see more and more patented products in the market, but it will be slow and gradual unless corrective measures are taken to tighten the loose knots in the Patent Amendment Act 2005, as stated earlier. As more and more Indian companies will start embracing an innovation-driven business model, the strengths and the international experience of the MNCs in this area should be leveraged to catapult the Indian pharmaceutical industry to a much higher growth trajectory.

The interview is available at the following link:

http://www.pharma.focusreports.net/#state=Interview&id=0

By: Tapan J Ray

Fostering ‘Innovation’ and protecting of ‘Public Health Interest’: A formidable task for the new TF (taskforce)

Posted on March 28, 2011 by Tapan Ray

‘The Lancet’, March 19, 2011 in its article titled “India: access to affordable drugs and the right to health”, where the authors reiterated:

‘The right to health is a fundamental right in India, judicially recognized under article 21 of the Constitution…Access to affordable drugs has been interpreted to be a part of right to health’.

Keeping in view of this ‘fundamental right’ of the citizens, public health related issues will continue to be treated as a subject of ‘Public Interest’ in the country.

At the same time, no one can wish away the fact that unmet medicinal needs of the ailing patients can only be met through discovery of innovative drugs. Hence, an innovation friendly ecosystem must necessarily be created in the country, simultaneously. This throws open the dual challenge to the government in the healthcare space of the nation – charting an appropriate pathway to foster a climate for innovation and at the same time protecting ‘Public Health Interest’ of its citizens.

The recent admirable response of the Ministry of Health:

Considering this dual healthcare related needs of the country, on March 15, 2011, Mr Ghulam Nabi Azad, the Minister of Health and Family Welfare, announced the formation of a 12-member task force that will evolve the following strategies under the chairmanship of V.M. Katoch, Secretary, Department of Health Research and Director-General, ICMR and will submit its report within three months.

Evolving a short, medium and long-term policy and strategy to make India a hub for drug discovery, research and development.
Evolving strategies to further the interests of Indian pharma industry in the light of issues related to intellectual property rights and recommend strategies to capitalise the opportunity of $60 to $80 billion drugs going off-patent over the next five years.
Evolve policy measures to assure national drugs security by promoting indigenous production of bulk drugs, preventing takeover of Indian pharma industry by multi-national corporations, drug pricing, promotion of generic drugs
Recommend measures to assure adequate availability of quality generic drugs at affordable prices.

Indian Pharmaceutical Industry is on a growth spree:

The pharmaceutical industry of India is currently playing a key role in promoting and sustaining development in the healthcare space of India. Due to significant cost arbitrage, educated and skilled manpower and cheap labor force among others, the industry is set to establish itself as a global force to reckon with, especially in the areas of generic formulations business, Contract Research and Manufacturing Services (CRAMS).

Estimates and Perspectives:

The pharma industry is growing at around 1.5-1.6 times the Gross Domestic Product growth of India
Currently, India ranks third in the world in terms of volume of manufacturing pharmaceutical products
The Indian pharmaceutical industry is expected to grow at a rate of around 15 % till 2015
The retail pharmaceutical market in India is expected to cross US$ 20 billion by 2015
According to a study by FICCI-Ernst & Young India will open a probable US$ 8 billion market for MNCs selling patented drugs in India by 2015
The number of pharmaceutical retailers is estimated to grow from 5.5 lakh to 7.5 lakhs by 2015
At least 2 lakh more pharma graduates would be required by the Indian pharmaceutical industry by 2015
The Indian drug and pharmaceuticals sector attracted foreign direct investment to the tune of US$ 1.43 billion from April 2000 to December 2008 (Ministry of Commerce and Industry), which is expected to increase significantly along with the policy reform measures and increased Government investment (3%-4%) as a percentage of GDP towards healthcare, by 2015
The Minister of Commerce estimates that US$ 6.31 billion will be invested in the domestic pharmaceutical sector
Due to low cost of R&D, the Indian pharmaceutical off-shoring industry is expected to be a US$ 2.5 billion opportunity by 2012

Key growth drivers: Local and Global:

Local:

• Rapidly growing middle class population of the country with increasing disposable income.
• High quality and cost effective domestic generic drug manufacturers are achieving increasing penetration in local, developed and emerging markets.
• Rising per capita income of the population and inefficiency of the public healthcare system will encourage private healthcare systems of various types and scales to flourish.
• High probability of emergence of a robust healthcare financing/insurance model for all strata of society.
• Fast growing in Medical Tourism.
• Evolving combo-business model of global pharmaceutical companies with both patented and generic drugs is boosting local outsourcing and collaboration opportunities.
Global:
Global pharmaceutical industry is going through a rapid process of transformation. The moot question to answer now is how the drug discovery process can meet the unmet needs of the patients and yet remain cost effective.

Cost containment pressure due to various factors is further accelerating this process. CRAMS business, an important outcome of this transformation process, will be the key growth driver for many Indian domestic pharmaceutical players in times to come.

Key Challenges:

Like all other industries, Pharmaceutical Industry in India has its own sets of Challenges and opportunities under which it operates. Some of the challenges the industry faces are:

Unfortunate “Trust Deficit” between the Government and the Industry, especially in pharmaceutical pricing area
Regulatory red tape and lack of initiative towards international harmonization
Inadequate infrastructure and abysmal public delivery system
Lack of adequate number of qualified healthcare professionals
Inadequate innovation friendly ecosystem to encourage R&D
Myopic Drug Policies have failed to deliver. The needs of over 350 million BPL families who cannot afford to buy any healthcare products and services, have not been effectively addressed, as yet
Inability of the government to address the critical issue of ‘80% out of pocket expenditure’ of the common man towards healthcare
Inadequate Public Private Partnership (PPP) initiatives in most of the critical areas of healthcare

Job Creation:

Pharmaceutical sector in India has created employment for approximately 3 million people from 23,000 plus units. Accelerated growth in job creation, will not only open up more opportunities to pharmaceutical professionals, but will also fuel growth opportunities in allied business segments like Laboratory, Scientific instruments, Medical Devices and Pharma machinery manufacturing sectors.

Despite all these, it is worth noting that the Indian pharmaceutical industry is confronting with a major challenge in getting employable workforce with the required skill sets. This issue will grow by manifold, as we move on, if adequate vocational training institutes are not put in place on time to generate employable workforce for the industry.

Government Initiatives are inadequate:

The government of India has started working out some policy and fiscal initiatives, though grossly inadequate, for the growth of the pharmaceutical business in India. Some of the measures adopted by the Government are follows:

Pharmaceutical units are eligible for weighted tax reduction at 175% for the research and development expenditure obtained.
Two new schemes namely, New Millennium Indian Technology Leadership Initiative and the Drugs and Pharmaceuticals Research Program have been launched by the Government.
The Government is contemplating the creation of SRV or special purpose vehicles with an insurance cover to be used for funding new drug research
The Department of Pharmaceuticals is mulling the creation of drug research facilities which can be used by private companies for research work on rent

Encouraging Pharmaceutical Export:

In the recent years, despite economic slowdown being witnessed in the global economy, pharmaceutical exports in India have registered an appreciable growth. Export has emerged as an important growth driver for the domestic pharmaceutical industry with more than 50 % of their total revenue coming from the overseas markets. For the financial year 2008-09 the export of drugs is estimated to be around US $8.25 billion as per the Pharmaceutical Export Council of India (Pharmexil). A survey undertaken by FICCI reported 16% growth in India’s pharmaceutical export during 2009-2010.

Five ‘Strategic Changes’ envisaged:
Five new key strategic changes, in my view, will be as follows:
1. As the country will move towards an integrated and robust healthcare financing system:
• Doctors will no longer remain the sole decision makers for the drugs that they will prescribe to the patients and also the way they will treat the common diseases. Healthcare providers/ medical insurance companies would play a key role in these areas by providing to the doctors well thought out treatment guidelines. • Tough price negotiation with the healthcare providers/ medical insurance companies will be inevitable for a significant proportion of the products that the pharmaceutical companies will sell related to these areas.

• Health Technology Assessment (HTA) or outcome based pricing will play an important role in pricing a healthcare product.
2. An integrated approach towards disease prevention will emerge as equally important as treatment of diseases.
3. A shift from just product marketing to marketing of a bundle of value added comprehensive disease management processes along with the product will be the order of the day
4. More affordable innovative medicines will be available with increasing access to a larger population, as appropriate healthcare financing model is expected to be in place.

5. Over the counter medicines, especially originated from rich herbal resources of India, will curve out a larger share of market, as appropriate regulations will be put in place.

Conclusion:

With the all these evolving trends in the healthcare sector of India, the ball game of the successful domestic Indian pharmaceutical industry is expected to undergo a rapid metamorphosis, as they will require to compete with the global players on equal footing. Those Indian Pharmaceutical companies, who are already global players in their own rights, are already well versed with the nuances of this new game and are expected to offer a tough competition to the global players, especially, in the branded generic space, initially.

However, for some domestic players, the new environment could throw a major challenge and make them vulnerable to the consolidation process, already set in motion within Indian pharmaceutical industry.

The newly formed taskforce will hopefully be able to address all these issues in an integrated way to guide this life-line industry to a much higher growth trajectory to compete effectively not only in the global generic space, but also with the global innovator companies, sooner than later.

So the name of the game is to ‘Foster Innovation’ and protect ‘Public Health Interest’ simultaneously and not one at the cost of the other.

By: Tapan J Ray

PILMAN

A Tapan Ray Website

Tag Archives: Tapan

From Cross-Licensing to ‘Patent Pools’ and… India: Will there be a ground swell?

e-healthcare: A new vista to improve access to quality and affordable healthcare in India

Biologic Medicine: Ushers in a different ‘Mega Race’ for inorganic growth

Greater promise in biologics:

Could M&As in Pharma create significant stakeholder value?

‘Frugal Innovation’ in Healthcare: Ahoy!

Deadly ‘Superbugs’: The larger issues

Tapan Ray in ‘Focus Reports’, March 2011

Fostering ‘Innovation’ and protecting of ‘Public Health Interest’: A formidable task for the new TF (taskforce)