A Game-Changing Non-Covid Drug Approval In the Pandemic Milieu

Posted on October 11, 2021 by Tapan Ray

Amid high decibel deliberations on Covid-19 pandemic, something similar to groundbreaking happened – involving Biosimilar drugs, in just a couple of months ago. On July 28, 2021, in the Eldorado of the pharma industry, the US-FDA approved the first ‘interchangeable’ biosimilar drug, for wider access to modern and much affordable treatment of diabetes. This is expected to open new vistas of opportunity for biosimilar drugs, in general, across the world.

The development is even more interesting, as the product named Semglee belongs to India’s largest biopharmaceutical company - Biocon Biologic. It’s an ‘interchangeable’ biosimilar insulin glargine, referencing Sanofi’s, reportedly the second best-selling product in 2020 - Lantus. Notably, the Biocon product was launched in 2020 without the ‘interchangeability’ designation.

Although, the patent of this long-acting insulin (glargine) – used to treat diabetes type I and II, expired during 2015, in 2020 also Lantus generated some 2.7 billion U.S. dollars worldwide. Many envisage, the approval of this first ‘interchangeable’ biosimilar insulin glargine will foster stronger competition in the insulin market, which is currently dominated by a handful of brands, like Lantus – and characterized by their stubbornly high prices.

In today’s article, I shall focus on what it means to pharma marketers for greater market access to ‘interchangeable’ biosimilar drugs.

What ‘interchangeability’ really means:

As I wrote in my article on July 31,2017, there are two key barriers to improving patient access to biosimilar drugs, and one of which is the issue of their ‘interchangeability’ with original biologic drugs. It means, besides being highly similar, a biosimilar drug would require indisputable clinical evidence – that it gives the same result to patients, just as the original biologic medicine.

Thus, lack of the ‘interchangeability’ designation makes many physicians hesitant to switch, for all those existing patients who are on expensive original biologic drugs, to less expensive available biosimilar alternatives. Only new patients in that case, are prescribed biosimilar drugs, sans ‘interchangeability’ label from the drug regulator, especially in the US.

Overcoming a tough barrier to biosimilar market growth:

This was echoed by another article on ‘Interchangeability’ of biosimilars, published in the Pharmaceutical Journal on July 22, 2020. It wrote, ‘One of the hurdles in the adoption of biosimilars is the lack of interchangeability with reference biologics.’ While interchangeability is an important issue for doctors, ‘different definitions and regulatory frameworks that exist in the United States, Europe and other jurisdictions add to the complexity.’

What the ‘interchangeable’ designation of Semglee will really mean, in terms of affordability to patients, was lucidly explained in an article, published in the AJMC – the center for Biosimilars – on July 29, 2021. It underscored: ‘An interchangeable designation means that Semglee can be substituted for Lantus automatically by pharmacists without physicians’ permission.’ As reported, Semglee will cost nearly 3 times less than the list price of Sanofi’s Lantus, which in 2019 clocked in at $283.56 for a single vial and $425.31 for a box of five pens, in the US.

Are interchangeable biosimilars superior to other biosimilars?

The ‘interchangeable’ designation is not meant to suggest that such biosimilars are superior to ones without this label. However, to obtain the ‘interchangeable’ designation, biosimilar manufacturers are required to perform ‘switching studies.’ These provide evidence that patients who are using originator’s biologic drug, when switch to a comparable biosimilar, do not experience higher rates of adverse events or decreased efficacy. The same has also been clearly explained in the AJMC article of July 29, 2021, as mentioned above.

But, if marketed well, ‘interchangeable’ biosimilars can provide a cutting edge to encourage consumers to switch to the less-expensive ‘interchangeable’ versions of the original higher priced biologic drugs. Consequently, more economical ‘interchangeable’ biosimilars would carve out a larger market share, creating a win-win situation. For patients, it will expand affordable access to biologic drugs- and for the company increased revenue from the expanding biosimilar market, as several studies point out.

Expanding biosimilar market:

According to the IQVIA report of March 04, 2021, the global biosimilars market currently shows double-digit growth and is expected to maintain a similar level of uptake in the coming years. This will be driven by the rising incidence of chronic diseases and the cost-effectiveness of biosimilars, especially as more stringent cost-containment measures are likely – post COVID-19 pandemic.

The paper concluded, biosimilars will continue to register impressive growth in their market share, aided by patent expiries and regulatory improvements which will permit easier and more rapid market access. Many pharmaceutical companies – having witnessed this trend, are now preparing to leverage the biosimilar opportunity. However, marketing large molecule biosimilar drugs will not be quite the same as marketing small molecule generics.

Estimated savings to patients with biosimilars – in Covid-19 context:

As the IQVIA Institute estimates, over the next five years biosimilars could globally contribute a cumulative $285 billions of savings to patients and payers. To put this in context, it says, over the same period, around $150 billion will be spent on COVID-19 vaccines. According to a senior IQVIA official, as quoted by Reuters Events of July 2, 2021: “The five-year savings from biosimilars could almost double the amount of incremental spending that will be going out to get everybody vaccinated around the world.”

Going by the IQVIA data, biosimilars are between 20% and 50% more affordable. And this is especially at a time when affordability drives a lot of healthcare - sustainability that has emerged as a major issue during the pandemic.

Conclusion:

Currently, in many countries of the world, alongside Covid vaccination drive in top gear, creation of a disruptive pandemic-specific – a robust health infrastructure for the future, is yet to be in place. More importantly, public health facilities, especially in India, are still struggling hard to meet affordable health care needs of patients – sans restrictions or apprehensions of getting infected by Covid-19.

Against this backdrop, the very first approval of an ‘interchangeable’ biosimilar drug, in the Eldorado of pharma business – the US, brings a new hope to many patients, in 2021. An expectation of reducing their healthcare burden, significantly. This will happen, as the prescribers muster enough confidence to advise patients switching from highly expensive original biologic to more affordable ‘interchangeable’ biosimilar drugs, as and when these are launched.

In tandem, with this growing new confidence, others – even ‘non-interchangeable’ biosimilar drugs, will be able to deliver more value being, besides greater affordability – wider access to sustainable-treatments for patients.

This comes, possibly with a caveat. Biosimilar drug marketers will need to chart a new marketing frontier, without holding on to their pre-covid strategies – especially for large molecule biosimilar drugs.

From this perspective, the US-FDA’s regulatory approval of the first ‘interchangeable’ biosimilar insulin to Sanofi’s high-priced Lantus, carries a game-changing potential in the biosimilar drug market, for astute pharma marketers to leverage.

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.

Criticality of Drug Quality In The Moment Of Truth

Posted on February 10, 2020 by Tapan Ray

When global health emergencies strike unannounced – in the scale and magnitude of new coronavirus, it shakes the health care system of all countries, in varying degree though, irrespective of the robustness of the economy. In such situation, the robustness of health care infrastructure, stringent manufacturing quality standards, operational flexibility for seamless sourcing of all drug ingredients in the required quantities, besides speed and agility of the delivery system – are put to the acid test.

Anytime readiness to effectively neutralize this crisis is of utmost importance. Accordingly, the key national goal should be to create a robust ‘whole’ that is much more than the sum total of each of each of the above factors – a sturdy ‘drug security system’ for the country. The most populous country of the world – China may have succeeded in building a 1,600-bed hospital coronavirus hospital in just 10 days, completing on February 05, 20120. But it is still looking for necessary drugs from other countries, such as the United States.

Curiously, China hasn’t yet disclosed its reason. More so, when the country is the top global supplier of Active Pharmaceutical Ingredients (API), including antiretroviral (ARV) drugs, along with India, according to the World Health Organization (W.H.O). This draws many to look at the general apprehension on the questionable quality of drugs that China, allegedly, produces. But, could this be the reason?

Nevertheless, regardless of inquisitiveness to know the reason, the question mark on its drug quality remains. And this is also not the risk-taking time for any nation, as it could possibly endanger lives of scores of the impacted population. The criticality of drug quality in ‘The Moment of Truth,’ such as, the new coronavirus emergency, can only be wished away at one’s own peril.

On the other hand, the confidence expressed in India, as we shall see below, in ‘drug security’, just based on adequate ARV drug availability appears to be coming from a different plane, although the drug quality issue is exactly the same in India, if not more concerning. From the above perspective, my today’s article will focus on this subject, purely based on available data, starting with the request of the Chinese authorities for ARV drugs from the United States.

Chinese request for ARV drugs:

‘U.S. Drugmakers Ship Therapies to China, Seeking to Treat Coronavirus – AbbVie, Gilead, others respond to Chinese authorities’ requests for antiviral drugs to test effectiveness against deadly respiratory illness.’ This was reported by The Wall Street Journal (WSJ) on January 27, 2020. It goes without saying that these antiviral drugs also include Anti-Retrovirals (ARVs).

AbbVie Inc. and Johnson & Johnson are among the drug makers that have begun shipping drugs approved to treat HIV, while Gilead Sciences Inc. is exploring whether it should send an antiviral therapy it is developing.

It isn’t known whether the drugs would be able to help contain the explosion of respiratory virus infections sweeping the country or provide relief to infected patients. Chinese authorities have requested the shipments to test the drugs’ effectiveness in containing the new coronavirus, the report added.

An intriguing difference between India and China:

Interestingly, China is looking for sourcing some of these ARV drugs from the United States and not from India, either – one of the top producers of these drugs, as W.H.O reported.

In contrast, according to an Indian report of February 04, 2020: ‘Leading domestic drug companies have said they are ready with supply of anti-retrovirals (ARVs) that seem to work in treating the novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV).’

As I said earlier, although, China hasn’t yet specified the reasons behind their decision on ARV drug import from the United States, but could it have any link on the internal general apprehension of these drugs quality, safety and effectiveness?

Acknowledging for a moment that this is global allegation on Chinese drugs, in general. So is regarding India, as we shall see below. Then where does India stand on this score, especially in view of the confidence with ARV drugs, as exhibited in the above media report from India? That said, the logical question that surfaces now – why is the request for ARV drugs?

Why ARV drugs?

Although W.H.O said that there is ‘No known effective treatments’ for new coronavirus, as yet, various reports do indicate the use of ARV drugs in the treatment of 2019-nCoV:

A combination of flu and HIV medications are helping treat severe cases of the new coronavirus in Thailand.

Chinese health officials are already administering the HIV and flu drugs to fight the coronavirus, but the combination of the three together in a cocktail seemed to improve the treatment.

The Scientist, on February 02, 2020 reported that large doses of the flu drug oseltamivir combined with HIV drugs lopinavir and ritonavir, reportedly, improved the conditions of several patients in Bangkok, Thailand.

Global dependence on Chinese and Indian generic drugs:

About 80 percent of the Active Pharmaceutical Ingredients (APIs), including many ARVs, which are used for manufacturing of drug formulations in the United States are said to come from China and other countries like India. This appeared in the article titled, ‘U.S. Dependence on Pharmaceutical Products From China,’ published by the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) on August 14, 2019.

India’s dependence on Chinese APIs:

Latest statistics from Directorate General of Commercial Intelligence and Statistics tabled in the Parliament show that in 2017-18, Indian imports of APIs and drug intermediates from China increased to 68.36 per cent. The same at 67.56 per cent in 2018-19, still remained the largest share in total Indian imports, with the overall India’s dependence on imports going up by 23 per cent from 2016-17 to 2018-19.

As reported in the media on November 22, 2019, India’s national strategies, such as, “2015 – Year of Active Pharmaceutical Ingredients” or ‘Make in India’ campaign, to promote indigenous means of production continue to be relegated on paper. Even, the current National Security Advisor had warned that Chinese dependence on API can be a national security threat.

According to the Department of Pharmaceuticals (DoP), Chinese API imports are due to economic considerations, which are essentially cheaper and more cost-effective for the Indian drug manufacturers, the above report highlighted.

Against this backdrop, the above local media report indicating, leading domestic drug companies are ready to supply anti-retrovirals (ARVs), may invite more questions than answers. Added to this come the critical quality issues with drugs manufactured in China and India.

Quality issues with Chinese drugs:

Credible documents highlight, as China’s pharmaceutical industry is not effectively regulated by the Chinese government, its regulatory apparatus is inadequately resourced to oversee thousands of Chinese drug manufacturers. Even if Beijing made such oversight a greater priority. This has resulted in significant drug safety scandals.

Although, the drug quality related concerns seem to be even more related to India, the drug industry of the country, reportedly, remains in a denial over most of such charges involving drug-quality.

India tops with the most quality related FDA warning letters in 2019:

The author of the above article reiterates, ‘Americans are expecting India, which supplies a significant percentage of the finished drug supply in the U.S., to get its act together to improve the quality of the medicines it makes, I am afraid they will be waiting a long time for that to happen. The only solution is for American lawmakers to enact new regulations focused on holding those who intentionally put public health at risk to account.’

To avoid ‘your-opinion-versus-my-opinion’ type of a debate with this article, let us look at some hard facts. These are from the ‘warning letters’ on drug quality, issued to various pharma companies, across the world, by the USFDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER). The details were well captured in an article, titled ‘The country with the most FDA warning letters in 2019,’ published by Pharma Manufacturing on January 20, 2020.

Some key CDER findings:

As I consider, the top three CDER findings may be summarized as follows:

In 2019, CDER issued dozens warning letters for manufacturing issues to pharma companies outside the U.S. One country in particular – India – received the highest number of letters.

CDER’s office of Manufacturing Quality Letters issued 43 letters to companies outside of the U.S. Of those letters:

- 20 were aimed at facilities in India.

- With 11, China received the second most manufacturing quality warning letters.

- The rest of the letters were distributed among plants in Europe, Costa Rica, Singapore, Turkey and others.

The data from CDER shows that India has the poorest rate of FDA inspections with acceptable outcomes (83 percent) — much lower than China (90 percent) and the U.S. (93 percent).

Conclusion:

Today, a host of effective drugs and vaccines are available to treat a number of both non-infectious and infectious ailments, including many life-threatening viral diseases. However, the effectiveness of these medicines in treating such diseases, as well as many other illnesses, gets significantly compromised by questionable quality and distribution of these medicinal products. Even way back, a similar concern was deliberated in an article captioned, ‘Substandard drugs: a potential crisis for public health’, published in the British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology (BJCP), on November 29, 2013..

It may ordinarily remain undetected, sans stringent and wide-scale regulatory scrutiny. Additionally, a number of involved countries still remain in a denial mode. It’s also a fact, several governments may not have wherewithal for the same, particularly when the manufacturing units are too many, such as in China and India.

However, when a critical national health emergency strikes, unannounced, like the new coronavirus, the moment of truth dawns. Obviously, the national governments would want to be risk averse and prefer sourcing the best of drugs, to rapidly contain the spread of the disease, saving more lives. It’s not difficult to fathom, either, any country is unlikely to admit this reality, in public, even while taking measures for the same.

China’s sourcing of ARV and other drugs from the United States may or may not be due to the drug quality reasons. Nonetheless, I reckon, the criticality of drug quality issues can possibly be best realized, mostly when the ‘Moment of Truth’ arrives. Unannounced! Just like a bolt from the blue!

By: Tapan J. Ray

‘Made-to-Measure’ Marketing for ‘Made-to-Measure’ Medicines

Posted on March 26, 2018 by Tapan Ray

We have entered into a new era of innovation in medical science where ‘one size fits all’ type of treatment is making a sizeable space for a new ‘made-to-measure’ variety of the same. Such medicines are being developed particularly for life-threatening and rare diseases, where individual genetic differences in patients play a key role in the choice of therapy.

The marketers of such drugs, at the same time, will need to make sure that the right sets of messages are delivered to the right person, in the right way and at the right time, for brand success. This isn’t a piece of cake, as it will be akin to finding out a needle from a haystack. It would call for craftily ferreting out from an enormous database, both the patients’ and the prescribers detail profile virtually in each stage of the treatment process.

Such information would form the bedrock for effective brand value creation and its delivery, to achieve best possible business results and also patient outcomes. Thus, ‘made-to-measure’ marketing would be a whole new ball game for many pharma marketers – a completely different situation that, very often, they know little about.

In this article, I shall dwell on this subject. Let me begin with a brief description of the emerging ‘made-to-measure’ variety of treatments.

‘Made-to-measure’ treatment:

There are many serious and life-threatening disease conditions where ‘One Size Fits All’ sort of treatment approach doesn’t work too well. One such dreaded disease is cancer. Conventionally, following standard treatment guidelines, doctors generally opt for similar treatment for patients suffering from the same type and stage of cancer. Interestingly, it has been conclusively established over a period of time that this approach often yields different outcomes to different patients.

With the progress of genetic science, the researchers have unraveled this mystery from the genetic difference of patients. This understanding heralded the dawn of a new era of targeted or ‘made-to-measure’ drug therapies. These are called “personalized medicine” or “precision medicine”. According to the National Research Council, “personalized medicine” is an older term with a meaning similar to “precision medicine.”

Personalized medicines:

According to the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO), understanding a patient’s genetic makeup and ascertaining how certain gene changes during cancerous tumor growth, doctors can now choose more effective treatment options for each patient. In other words, based on genetic test results, oncologists can now opt for a customize treatment, based on each patient’s specific needs. Such drugs can block or turn off the signals that tell malignant cells to grow and divide, keep cells from living longer than normal, or kill the cancer cells altogether.

Moreover, by performing genetic tests both on the cancer and normal cells, doctors can also:

Find out the chances of a person developing cancer and selecting the screening strategies to lower the risk
Match patients with treatments that are likely to be more effective and cause fewer side effects
Predict the risk of recurrence, which means the return of cancer

The new era began in 1998:

The era of ‘personalized medicine’ for cancer, in all practical purposes, commenced in 1998, when the US-FDA approved the targeted therapy, Herceptin (trastuzumab). Breast cancer patients having high levels of a biomarker, known as “HER-2,” are more likely to be susceptible to this drug.

Since then, the development of targeted therapies has grown rapidly. As reported by the American Journal of Managed Care (AJMC), published on January 31, 2018, one in every 4 drugs approved by the US-FDA over the past 4 years was a personalized medicine, and the agency approved a record-breaking 16 personalized therapy in 2017. The same year, US-FDA also approved the first biosimilar of a personalized medicine - trastuzumab-dkst (Ogivri) for HER-2-positive breast cancer patients. This biosimilar was developed with Herceptin as its reference.

The February 2018 report of Research and Markets titled, ‘Personalized Medicine – Scientific and Commercial Aspects’ says, the aim of ‘personalized medicine’ is to match the right drug to the right patient and, in some cases, even to design the appropriate treatment for a patient according to his/her genotype. I deliberated on genotype-based treatment in my article titled, ‘A Disruptive Innovation to Fight and Cure Intractable Diseases’, published in this blog on October 30, 2017.

At this point, let me hasten to add that the development of personalized medicine raises some ethical issues, as well. Currently, this debate is mostly limited to the area of genetic testing.

Personalized dosage:

An article published on March 23, 2015 in the ‘FDA Voice’ of the US-FDA states, since the 1990s, the agency is also working on personalized drug dosing. This is because individuals differ in how they eliminate a drug. Some eliminate it much more slowly than most other people, and thus are susceptible to overdosing, while others eliminate it much faster, and may not get the desired therapeutic effect. There are biomarkers to identify people who may have these unusual results. Personalized drug dosing makes sure that drug efficacy for such patients are not compromised, or they are not at high risk of any severe side effects.

Marketing ‘personalized medicine’ a whole new ball game:

All this vindicates that ‘personalized medicine’ is not just a flash in the pan. With each passing year, it’s moving ahead at a brisk pace. In this emerging scenario, what happens to marketing of these drugs? Will the marketing of ‘personalized medicine’ remain just the same as the conventional one, or it warrants radically different cerebral inputs?

The opportunities for personalization in pharma marketing are immense. ‘Personalized medicines’ offer a greater scope in leveraging its potential that is yet to be fathomed, meaningfully. Broadly, this will mean targeting customers or potential consumers even at the individual level, to add greater differential value.

This, in turn, will involve making the marketing content, the message format and choosing the effective value delivery platforms, virtually ‘made-to-measure’ for the target audience. Marketing interaction of this ilk, has proven to offer a cutting-edge experience to the target groups with greater outcomes, in tandem, yielding superior financial results to the concerned pharma players.

Recent reports:

On December 18, 2017, Cambridge BioMarketing – one of the world’s leading rare disease agency highlighted, as personalized medicine continues to take hold, it will be more important than ever for healthcare companies to incorporate the ‘hyperpersonalized’ experience in marketing and communications. Patients’ voice has already started becoming more important than ever before, in various facets of pharma business. In 2018, one may expect to witness more pharma companies tapping the experts who can help explain the life-changing benefits of a treatment for the patient, effectively – the report predicted.

Moving forward, patients embarking on new treatments will be better empowered to take charge of their well-being. Physicians and nurses will also be better connected to their patients, along with other care providers, with the support of enhanced digital connections and mobile apps. Interestingly, one can find it happening in several developed countries, especially, in areas like rare diseases, where ‘personalized medicines’ will be used more – underscored this agency.

On January 22, 2018, quoting the same Cambridge BioMarketing, FiercePharma also reported, more ‘personalized medicines’ also mean more ‘personalized marketing’ – and the ‘hyperpersonalization’ trend goes to extremes. Crunching data gathered from multiple sources, such drug marketers need to identify small groups that could be receptive to specific messaging. Advanced data and analytics, would facilitate the marketers to whittle down their targets and tailor messages to consumer audiences, sometimes as small as one person – the report asserted.

Conclusion:

As the February 2018 report of ‘Research and Markets’ highlights, increase in efficacy and safety of treatment by individualizing it, has benefitted in financial terms too. Available information indicates that ‘personalized medicine’ will ultimately be cost-effective in healthcare systems. This would also eliminate the need for various assumptions in the process of diagnosing a disease.

Thus, conventional pharma marketing based on the mostly segmentation strategy used for blockbuster molecules may not work for a ‘personalized medicine’. Instead, ‘personalized marketing, focused on smaller and exclusive markets – identified based on robust research and analytical data, will be the name of the new game for business excellence in this specialized area.

Thus, I reckon, as we move ahead, ‘made-to-measure’ marketing will no doubt be one of the key success requirements to make ‘made-to-measure’ medicines’ – a money spinner.

By: Tapan J. Ray

For Improving Drug Quality in India – A Bizarre Intent

Posted on January 29, 2018 by Tapan Ray

On January 16, 2017, quoting a Government source, a media report revealed, “India’s drug regulator is looking to inspect US pharmaceutical facilities, making critical medicines so that only high-quality products are imported from them.”

This intent follows a similar decision of the apex regulatory body – the Central Drugs Standard Control Organization (CDSCO), against some Chinese manufacturers on drug quality concern. The latest proposal to this effect was sent to the health ministry the previous week – the above report adds.

In this article, I shall explore the fundamental basis of this specific initiative. If it has any, I shall try to fathom whether it’s yet another case of misplaced priority of the decision makers, if not a bizarre one.

The current perspective:

About a couple of years ago, an article published in the global financial daily – the Financial Times, on September 9, 2015 titled, ‘Indian drugs: not what the doctor ordered’, articulated that the Indian pharma industry ‘now face a serious credibility crisis, as they battle to allay western regulators’ concerns about their manufacturing practices — especially the reliability of data from trials of their medicines.’

The report also pointed out: ‘Overseas regulators have been scrutinizing and banning products from some of India’s biggest and most reputable groups — including Sun Pharmaceuticals, IPCA, and Wockhardt – many of which have ongoing relationships with large multinational drug companies.’

Has anything changed now?

Nothing perceptibly seems to have changed in this area since then, to set our ‘own house in order’. Not even after witnessing a barrage of drug quality related ‘import bans’ by the US-FDA that involves Indian manufacturers of all sizes and scale. Instead, CDSCO turns its focus on setting-right ‘others’ manufacturing houses with its reportedly meagre manpower resources. Curiously, these initiatives include even those countries, which are globally acclaimed for having stringent regulatory frameworks well in place, such as the United States (US) and the European Union (EU).

Where a justifiable reason exists:

On Chinese API import by different countries, the article titled “Imports To Fuel India’s Active Pharmaceutical Ingredients’ Requirements,” published by Bloomberg | Quint on November 15, 2017 brings out a nice comparison. It says: ‘Among the top emerging and developing economies, India is a major importer of bulk drugs from China at 54 percent, followed by Indonesia at 24 percent, Brazil at 12 percent and South Africa at 8 percent.’ It also writes, in comparison, most of the developed markets of the world import in the range of just 2-3 percent from China.’

Going by this fact, Indian drug regulator’s inspection of some of the Chinese API plants is, by all means, understandable – mainly for two reasons. One, India is largely dependent on Chinese bulk drugs for formulations manufacturing and consumption in the country, besides exports. And the second, some incidents of compromised Chinese drug ingredients have already been reported. For example, citing quality issues, the Drug Controller General of India (DCGI) has recently, reportedly banned import of such questionable drug constituents from six major Chinese pharma companies. This is not a solitary instance. Similar incidents involving Chinese drugs were reported in the past, as well.

An irony:

When international media agencies flash headlines, such as “U.S. and EU regulators urge Indian drug companies to step up standards,” Indian drug regulators decide to inspect overseas manufacturing plants, as well. Such a decision becomes intriguing, especially when it includes those countries, where from imports are meager, besides their stringent drug quality standards being globally acclaimed.

This is an irony, as the recent local media headlines like, “India among countries where 10% of drugs are substandard: WHO” or “… 27 medicines sold by top firms ‘fail’ quality tests in seven states”, unfold the veracity of drug regulatory laxity within the country.

The basis of the recent proposal becomes more incomprehensible, when the DCGI himself reportedly admits, even today that: “Substandard medicines are a major issue in India and we are looking out for ways to tackle the problem. As quality regulator, we are developing proper mechanisms to stop manufacturing and sale of counterfeit drugs so that they don’t reach the patients.”

The reasons cited for overseas plant inspection:

According to media reports, the reasons cited in the CDSCO proposal for Indian Drug Inspectors’ (DI) inspecting other overseas manufacturers, including those in the US and Europe, are broadly as follows:

Most of over 28 manufacturing sites registered in India from the US, manufacture critical formulations or critical new therapies, which are not available in other countries, as they fall into high-risk categories.

Inspections will not only result in compliance to the Drugs and Cosmetics Act and Rules, but also give exposure to Indian drugs inspectors to new technology adopted in the manufacturing and state-of-the-art facilities.

The sites will be inspected if they have made substandard drugs, received quality complaints, or faced action by other regulatory authorities.

Companies shortlisted for the proposed inspections include those making biologic and anti-cancer medicines.

Let me hasten to add, there is nothing wrong with this intent as such, but the moot point is: what’s the core issue that we are talking about? While addressing this point, let’s first have a quick look at India’s import of pharmaceutical product around the last two decades.

India’s import of pharmaceutical products – 1996 – 2018:

According to ‘Trading Economics’ (last updated in January of 2018), India’s import of pharmaceutical products decreased to USD 254.57 Million in 2016 from USD 795.34 Million in 2015. Average drug imports are shown as USD 645.06 USD Million from 1996 until 2016, reaching an all-time high of USD 1747.65 Million in 2012, and a record low of USD 64.32 Million in 1996.

Nonetheless, the micro- picture of India’s bulk drugs or API import isn’t quite the same. On December 19, 2017 in a written reply to the Lok Sabha, the Minister of State, Chemicals and Fertilizers gave details of India’s bulk drug imports from top five countries, as follows:

Country	Import value Rs Crore	Import value $ Million (Approx.)
China	12,254.97	1915 (66%)
United States	820.18	128 (4.5%)
Italy	701.85	110 (3.8%)
Germany	485.11	76 (2.6%)
Singapore	422.01	66 (2.3%)
Total	18,372.54	2871

It’s worth noting, although the overall value of API import has declined, including from China, its volume share still remains too high in India. More importantly, Indian drug import from the United States and the European countries, are not only very small, there doesn’t seem to be enough instances of substandard drugs imported from these countries to India, either.

The core issue:

Taking a serious note of the reported incidences of widespread substandard drugs by various reports, including the WHO, the core issue becomes rather obvious. What else could possibly be the core issue other than taking effective remedial regulatory measures to contain the menace of substandard drugs circulating within the country?

An article titled, “Correcting India’s Chronic Shortage of Drug Inspectors to Ensure the Production and Distribution of Safe, High-Quality of Medicines,” published by the International Journal of Health Policy and Management (IJHPM) on April 27, 2017, made an important observation in this regard.

It reiterated: Good drug regulation requires an effective system for monitoring and inspection of manufacturing and sales units. In India, despite widespread agreement on this principle, ongoing shortages of drug inspectors have been identified as a major hindrance to this effort by the national committees, since 1975. Rapid growth of India’s pharmaceutical industry and its large export market makes the problem more acute.

Thus, the major remedial measure that CDSCO needs to take on priority to effectively address this core issue, is the chronic shortage of competent drug inspectors in the country.

An assessment of the current situation:

On the ground, the above situation continues to prevail almost in every state of the country, with a varying degree, though. However, at this point, I shall quote just three such instances – only to illustrate the gravity of the situation.

Example 1 – Delhi:

The article titled, “Delhi’s pharmacy woes: Only 21 inspectors for city’s 25,000 chemists,” published by ‘India Today’ on November 25, 2017, well-captured the latest scenario in this regard, of India’s national capital – New Delhi.

It wrote, there’s no guarantee that the medicine you are buying from a pharmacy is safe. The drug regulatory body does not have enough manpower to conduct regular inspections of the city’s mushrooming chemist shops and wholesale units.

Against the sanctioned posts of 31 drug inspectors, the department has only 21 DI for keeping an eye on Delhi’s 25,000 medical stores, and blood banks. Quoting Government officials the report reiterated, while the number of DI has declined – or at best remained constant – over the past 40 years, the number of pharmacies has increased from 5,000 to 25,000.

Whereas, going by the Centre’s recommendation, Dr. Mashelkar Committee report and the Task Force Committee’s observation, there should be one drug inspector for every 50 manufacturing units. Considering the magnitude of the problem, the Drugs Technical Advisory Board (DTAB), in a recent meeting, reportedly suggested, there should be one official for every 200 sales outlets, and one official for every 50 manufacturing units.

Example 2 – Kerala:

Another report of July 08, 2017, with a similar headline – “Remedial action needed in medicine market”, focused on one more important state – Kerala. It wrote that the Kerala has just 47 drug inspectors to monitor the entire State drug market that has over 20,000 drug stores, excluding those located in the hospitals. “In Kerala – the consumer of about 15 to 20 percent of drugs manufactured in the country, there are no quality checks taking place owing to the manpower shortage” – the article cautioned.

Example 3 – Maharashtra:

Yet another national media report of March 16, 2017 carried a headline ‘FDA faces staff shortage again.’ It discussed the same issue for a major State where the financial capital of India is located – Maharashtra. Giving details, the article pointed out that out of 160 posts of drug inspectors across Maharashtra, only 90 have been filled so far and of the 250 food safety officer posts, just 180 have been filled. More than 50,000 pharmacies, 15,000 wholesalers and over 8,000 manufacturing units, are supposed to be properly governed as per the regulatory rules and godliness, to ensure high quality drug safety standards, by this meager DI staff strength of the State.

Conclusion:

Against the above backdrop, it appears absolutely minimum to expect that CDSCO would make the public know, how does it plan to make the drugs manufactured for domestic consumption of high quality standards, as a safeguard to patients’ health and safety.

This calls for strict quality audits by the DIs of the individual states, at pre-determined periodicity, just as what US-FDA does to ensure exactly the same, for patients in their own country. With dwindling resources of DI, CDSCO seems to be continually failing in achieving this critical goal. There doesn’t seem to be any specific and transparent accountability criteria in place, for the CDSCO to comply with.

In this situation, the plan to audit the overseas manufacturing plants located in the US and EU for drug quality assessment, carving out a slice from the existing DI manpower strength, appears rather foolhardy. Moreover, the safety-risk for those imported medicines is apparently low, not just due to meager quantity of drug import, but also for stringent regulatory environment prevailing in those countries.

In view of all this, the media report on CDSCO’s plan to inspect US and EU pharma facilities, making ‘critical’ drugs to ensure high product-quality, is interesting. If it holds any water, the initiative may be construed by many not merely a case of misplaced priority, but a bizarre one, to say the least.

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.

Patent Expiry No Longer End of The Road

Posted on December 4, 2017 by Tapan Ray

Who says that the phenomenal success of blockbuster drugs is mostly eaten away by ‘look-alikes’ of the same, immediately after respective patent expiry? It doesn’t seem to be so any longer, not anymore! Several examples will vindicate this emerging trend. However, I shall quote just a few of these from the published reports.

In 2016, the patent of AbbVie’s Humira (Adalimumab), indicated in the treatment of autoimmune diseases and moderate to severely active rheumatoid arthritis, expired in the United States (US). It will also expire in Europe by 2018. This event was expected to create significant opportunities for lower priced Adalimumab biosimilars in the US market, increasing the product access to many more patients at affordable prices. Just as it happens with patent expiry of small molecule blockbuster drugs. One of the classic examples of which, is a sharp decline in sales turnover and profit from Pfizer’s Lipitor (Atorvastatin), as its patent expired on November 30, 2011.

However, Humira topped the prescription-drug list of 2016 with an annual growth of 15 percent, accounting for USD 16 billion sales, globally. More interestingly, according to a recent report of EvaluatePharma, AbbVie’s Humira will continue to retain its top most ranking in 2020 with expected sales of USD 13.9 billion. Nevertheless, possible threat from biosimilars has slightly slowed down its growth. Although, there are many other similar examples, I would quote just three more of these to illustrate the point, as follows:

Rituxan (Rituximab, MabThera) indicated in the treatment of cancer and co-marketed by Biogen and Roche, went off-patent in 2015. However, in 2016, the product held 4^th position in the prescription drug market with a revenue growth of nearly 3 percent. Even five years after its patent expiry, Rituxan is still expected to occupy the 17^thrank with an estimated turnover of over USD 5 billion in 2020, according to the EvaluatePharma report.

Remicade (Infliximab) indicated for autoimmune diseases and manufactured by J&J and Merck, lost market exclusivity in 2015. But, in 2016 it still held 5^th place in the global ranking. Five years after it goes off patent, Remicade is expected to feature in the 6^th rank in 2020, with an estimated turnover of over USD 6.5 billion, according to the same report as above.

The US product patent for Lantus – a long-acting human insulin analog manufactured by Sanofi, expired in August 2014. However, in 2016, clocking a global turnover of USD 6.05 billion, Lantus still ranked 10 in the global prescription brand league table. Six years after its patent expiry – in 2020, Lantus will continue to feature in the rank 20, as the same EvaluatePharma report estimates.

These examples give a feel that unlike small molecule blockbuster drugs, patent expiry is still not end of the road to retain this status for most large molecule biologics, across the world. In this article, I shall discuss this point taking Humira as the case study.

What about biosimilar competition?

In any way, this does not mean that related biosimilars are not getting regulatory approval in the global markets, post-patent expiry of original biologic drugs, including the United States. Nonetheless, biosimilar makers are facing new challenges in this endeavor, some of which are highly cost intensive, creating tough hurdles to make such drugs available to more patients at an affordable price, soon enough. It happened for the very first biosimilar to Humira, as well. On September 23, 2016, almost immediately after its patent expiry in 2016, the USFDA by a Press Release announced approval for the first biosimilar to Humira (adalimumab). This was Amgen’s Amjevita (adalimumab-atto), indicated for multiple inflammatory diseases.

The second biosimilar to AbbVie’s Humira – Boehringer Ingelheim’s Cyltezo (adalimumab-adbm), was also approved by the USFDA in August 2017. So far, six biosimilars have been introduced in the United states. But, none of these got approved as an ‘interchangeable’ product. Some of these, such as Cyltezo could not even be launched, as yet. I shall discuss this point later in this article. Thus, Humira is expected to retain its top global prescription brand ranking in 2020 – over 4 years after its patent expiry.

In Europe, two marketing authorizations were reportedly granted by the European Commission (EC) in March 2017 for Amgen’s biosimilars to Humira, named Amgevita (adalimumab) and Solymbic (adalimumab). Later this year, in November 2017 Boehringer Ingelheim’s – Cyltezo also received its European marketing approval.

It is worth noting that in December 2014, the Drug Controller General of India (DCGI) reportedly granted marketing approval for Zydus Cadila’s Adalimumab biosimilar (Exemptia) for treating rheumatoid arthritis and other autoimmune disorders in India. The company claims: “This novel non-infringing process for Adalimumab Biosimilar and a novel non-infringing formulation have been researched, developed and produced by scientists at the Zydus Research Centre. The biosimilar is the first to be launched by any company in the world and is a ‘fingerprint match’ with the originator in terms of safety, purity and potency of the product.”

Several important reasons indicate why a full throttle competition is lacking in the biosimilar market early enough – immediately after patent expiry of original biologic molecules. I shall cite just a couple of these examples to illustrate the point. One is related to aggressive brand protection, creating a labyrinth of patents having different expiry dates. And the other is a regulatory barrier in the form of drug ‘interchangeability’ condition, between the original biologic and related biosimilars:

In the labyrinth of patents:

The most recent example of innovator companies fiercely protecting their original biologic from the biosimilar competition by creating a labyrinth of patents is Boehringer Ingelheim’s Cyltezo. This is biosimilar to AbbVie’s Humira, approved by the USFDA and EC in August 2017 and November 2017, respectively.

According to reports: “BI does not intend to make the drug commercially available in Europe until the respective SPC (supplementary protection certificate) for adalimumab, which extends the duration of certain rights associated with a patent, expires in October 2018. Cyltezo is also not yet available in the US despite its approval there in August, because of ongoing patent litigation with AbbVie. AbbVie reportedly holds more than 100 patents on Humira, and believes that Boehringer could infringe 74 of these with the launch of its biosimilar. Similarly, the firm has also taken Amgen to court to block the launch of its proposed Humira biosimilar.”

Another interesting example is the epoch-making breast cancer targeted therapy Trastuzumab (Herceptin of Roche/Genentech). The patent on Herceptin reportedly expired in 2014 in Europe and will expire in the United States in 2019. The brand registered a turnover of USD 2.5 billion in 2016. However, a November 21, 2017 report says that creating a series of hurdle in the way of Pfizer’s introduction to Herceptin biosimilar, Roche has sued Pfizer for infringement of 40 patents of its blockbuster breast cancer drug. Pfizer hasn’t yet won approval for its Herceptin biosimilar, though, USFDA accepted its application in August 2017 – the report highlights

‘Interchangeability’ condition for biosimilars:

In the largest global pharma market – the United States, USFDA classifies biosimilars into two very distinct categories:

Biosimilars that are “expected to produce the same clinical result as the reference product”
Biosimilars that are “interchangeable,” or able to be switched with their reference product

According to reports, experts’ argument over ‘interchangeability’ in the US range from “whether pharmacists should be allowed to switch a biologic for its biosimilar without a doctor’s notification, to whether interchangeable biosimilars might be perceived as better or safer than their non-interchangeable counterparts.” This debate has somewhat been resolved by the US Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) issuance of draft guidance in January 2017, specifying what should be submitted to support an interchangeable application, the report says.

The article also indicates, “the draft makes clear that switching studies to help gain this designation should evaluate changes in treatment that result in two or more alternating exposures (switch intervals) to the proposed interchangeable product and to the reference product. Study design, types of data and other considerations are also included in that draft.” Nonetheless, compliance with this regulatory requirement is expected to be highly cost intensive, too.

Quoting a senior USFDA official, a report dated June 26, 2017 mentioned: “interchangeable biosimilars will come to market within the next two years, though possibly sooner. And the first interchangeable biosimilar will likely be reviewed by an FDA advisory committee of outside experts.” Still the bottom line remains no biosimilar has yet been approved by the USFDA as ‘interchangeable’. Hence, the optics related to desirable success for biosimilars continue to remain somewhat apprehensive, I reckon.

Patent related litigations on Trastuzumab (Herceptin) were filed by Roche in India, as well. However, it’s good to note that on December 01, 2017, by a Press Release, USFDA announced the approval of Mylan’s biosimilar variety of Roche’s blockbuster breast cancer drug – Herceptin. Mylan’s Ogivri was co-developed with Biocon in India to treat breast or stomach cancer, and is the first biosimilar approved in the United States for these indications. It is noteworthy that Ogivri also has not been approved as an interchangeable product.

The global and local scenario for biosimilars:

Be that as it may, the July 26, 2017 study of Netscribes – a global market intelligence and content management firm estimates that the global biosimilar market will be worth USD 36 billion by 2022. Some of the major findings of this study are as follows:

With a cumulative share of nearly 85%, North America, Europe, and Japan are the major contributors to global biological and biosimilar sales. Asia and Africa account for 13.2% and 1.2%, respectively.
Pfizer is the leading player in the biologic market, with sales of nearly USD 45.9 billion in 2016 followed by Novartis (41.6 billion) and Roche (39.6 billion).
Biosimilar approvals are estimated to be around of around 16 to 20 biosimilars between 2018 to 2021 in both US and EU.
The US is not a favorable market for biosimilars due to a number of reasons, such as poor access to biologic drugs and an unfavorable regulatory environment.
South Africa is one of the best-suited markets for biosimilars due to a favorable regulatory environment and prescriber acceptance.

According to the April 2017 analysis of Research And Markets, biosimilars have started winning key government tenders in countries like Mexico and Russia, and being purchased by a growing number of patients in self-pay markets such as India. The aggregate sales of ‘copy biologics’ in the six BRIC-MS (Brazil, Russia, India, China, Mexico, and South Korea) countries would now almost certainly exceed USD 1.5 billion. Yet Another estimate expects the Indian biosimilar market to increase from USD 186 million in 2016 to USD 1.1 billion in 2020. It is up to individual experts to assess whether or not this growth trend for biosimilars is desirable to adequately benefit a large number of patients, the world over.

Conclusion:

In my view, if what usually happens to sales and profit for small molecule blockbuster drugs post patent expiry, would have happened to the large molecule biologic drugs, the market scenario for biosimilars would have been quite different. In that scenario, one would have witnessed a plethora of biosimilar competition against high priced and money churning biologics, such as Humira, being launched with a significantly lesser price than the original brand.

Prices of biosimilars would have been much lesser primarily because, the litigation cost, now built into the biosimilar prices for successfully coming out of the labyrinth of patents after the basic patent expiry, would have been minimal. Moreover, restrictions on drug ‘interchangeability’ would not have made the target market smaller, especially in the United states.

Alongside, compliance with the regulatory need to meet the ‘interchangeability’ condition in the US, would drive the product cost even higher. More so, when this specific regulatory requirement is not necessary in other developed markets, like Europe. Both these factors would adversely impact affordability and access to sophisticated biologic drugs for patients, even after the fixed period of market exclusivity.

That said, a virtually impregnable patent labyrinth mostly ensures that going off-patent isn’t end of the road for blockbuster biologic drugs to continue generating significant revenue and profit, any longer – and it would remain so at least, in the short to medium term.

By: Tapan J. Ray

Pharma Governance Maladies and Corporate Leadership

Posted on October 2, 2017 by Tapan Ray

On September 26, 2017, two media headlines related to the Indian pharma industry, possibly made many wonder – Are these some of the key reasons prompting the Government to enforce stringent and costly regulations in this sector?

Above revelations came close on the heel of a series of alleged fraudulent, collusive and even criminal behavior of many domestic pharma players, by several overseas regulators, including the US-FDA. Besides international media, similar reports often featured in the national business dailies too. Most of these allegations are related to pharma marketing practices, and drug quality related concerns. In that sense, the core issues of following two news items are no different, and were reported as follows:

“The income tax (IT) investigation wing claims to have unearthed a nexus between a leading pharmaceutical company and doctors, and evidence showing payments running into Crores to the latter for prescribing the company’s medicines.”

Reaching out to Niti Aayog, Indian drug industry lobby groups, “mainly objected to three proposals in the draft policy floated last month: one drug one brand, curbing retailer margins, and mandatory bioavailability and bioequivalence (BA/BE) test for all drugs approved by state regulators and also future renewals.”

Out of these, the objection to mandatory BA/BE tests appears more intriguing to me – for two reasons. First, the news report doesn’t mention the participation of any global pharma company or their lobby groups in this meeting. If true, it would possibly mean, the pharma MNC players operating in India aren’t unduly worried about BA/BE requirements, which are mandatory in other countries of the world, primarily to ensure high generic drug quality standards.

The second one being, when the Indian pharma industry is so vocal on ‘poor quality’ of generic drugs sans brand names, apparently to protect branded generics, why is its lobby groups opposing mandatory BA/BE tests – so critical to address the quality issue. Opposing these tests, citing some ‘reason’, appears absurd. Resolving safety concerns on ‘Unbranded’ generics is nonnegotiable – for patients’ health and safety.

The major incident that snowballed:

It reminds me of the major US-FDA related quality issue involving Ranbaxy of India that eventually snowballed, attracting global media attention. This incident was well covered by Indian Press and Television, as well. As one such business daily reported, the much talked about whistleblower Dinesh Thakur, reportedly claimed that his boss in Ranbaxy made a detailed presentation of the alleged widespread manufacturing lapses and fudging of data in the company first to “a closed-door board of directors meeting in Thailand” in September 2004, and then to its science committee on December 21, 2004. Be that as it may, Ranbaxy subsequently pleaded guilty to several charges by the US-FDA, based on Dinesh Thakur’s testimony, and paid a hefty fine of US$ 550 million. It is worth noting, although Ranbaxy had an immaculate Board of Directors at that time, including distinguished and eminent personalities as the Independent Directors, the company used to be run by the promoters, or in other words, the key shareholders of the company. It may be coincidental that the majority of such incidences reported from India, either related to dubious pharma marketing practices or drug quality standard, may find a curious link with the promoter or the key shareholder driven domestic pharma companies.

The purpose of this article is not to assign blame to anyone, or any organization, but to have an intimate look at the governance process of most of such companies, which is systemic in nature. It may be worth pondering thereafter, whether one can learn the way forward from the credible research reports, available on this important subject.

The doctrine of ‘Maximizing Shareholder Value’:

In many corporate training sessions, especially for the senior management, including pharma industry in India, the above well-known doctrine is emphasized and reemphasized – again and again. It postulates, the ‘corporate managers should make maximizing shareholder value their goal – and that boards should ensure that they do.’

Indian pharma companies predominately being the promoter or the key shareholder driven corporations, choosing ‘maximizing shareholder value’ as the primary corporate mission, I reckon, is not too uncommon, either.

The basic premises of the theory:

The details of this theory were articulated in the 1976 Journal of Financial Economics article “Theory of the Firm,” by Michael Jensen and William Meckling. The concept was further deliberated in the article titled “The Error at the Heart of Corporate Leadership” by Joseph L. Bower and Lynn S. Paine, published in the May-June 2017 issue of Harvard Business Review, and its basic premises were summarized as follows:

Shareholders own the corporation and are “principals” with the original authority to manage the corporation’s business and affairs.
The corporation’s shareholders delegate decision-making authority to the managers and are thus “agents” of the shareholders.
As agents of the shareholders, managers are obliged to conduct the corporation’s business in accordance with shareholders’ desires.
Shareholders want the business to be conducted in a way that maximizes their own economic returns. (The assumption that shareholders are unanimous in this objective is implicit throughout the article.)

A flawed corporate governance model?

Bower and Paine in their above paper lucidly analyze a number of serious flaws in the basic premises of ‘maximizing shareholder value’ model. For example, they indicate that the ultimate responsibility and accountability for good corporate governance, or lack of it, lies squarely with the concerned senior management and the Board of Directors of the company and none else – not even with its large shareholders.

Moreover, the authors caution that this theory’s doctrine of alignment spreads moral hazard throughout a company and narrows management’s field of vision.

Putting it in the context of Indian pharma industry, I reckon, such risks increase alarmingly, when promoters take all management and Governance decisions, with the senior management, including the Board of Directors doing no more than endorsing those, knowingly or unknowingly, just as what happened in case of Ranbaxy, mentioned above.

Providing a more realistic foundation for corporate governance:

Against this backdrop, and accepting the following ground realities, there evolves a critical need to have a more realistic foundation for corporate governance and shareholder engagement, as the above HBR article deliberates:

Corporations are complex organizations whose effective functioning depend on talented leaders and managers.

Corporations can prosper over the long term only if they’re able to learn, adapt, and regularly transform themselves.

Corporations perform many functions in society – such as providing investment opportunities and generating wealth, producing goods and services, creating employment, developing technologies, paying taxes, and making several other significant contributions to the communities in which they operate.

Corporations may have differing objectives and strategies in this regard – such as, what the purpose of a corporation ought to be from a societal perspective may not be quite the same as what its promoters or key shareholders believe those to be.

Corporations must create value for multiple constituencies – such as, companies succeed only if customers want their products, employees want to work for them, suppliers want them as partners, shareholders want to buy their stock, and communities want their presence. In contrast, the ‘creating more shareholder value’ theory’s implied decision prompts that managers should always maximize value for shareholders – oversimplifies this challenge and leads eventually to systematic underinvestment in other important relationships.

Corporations must have ethical standards to guide interactions with all their constituencies, including shareholders and society at large – going beyond forbearance from fraud and collusion, is essential for earning the trust companies need to function effectively over time. ‘Creating more shareholder value’ theory’s ambivalence regarding corporate ethics can set companies up for destructive and even criminal behavior -which generates a need for the costly regulations that agency theory proponents are quick to decry.

All the above eight points, especially the last one, as many consider, are so relevant for the Indian pharma industry, probably more in the promoter-driven ones, as these constitute the bulk of it. It is equally important to understand that corporations are embedded not just in a network of financial systems, but also in a political and socioeconomic matrix, whose health is vital to their sustainability. Thus, changing from ‘‘creation of more shareholder value-centered governance’ to a ‘company-centered governance’ would be more meaningful in today’s paradigm.

The merits of ‘company-centered governance’:

As the Harvard article says, following are some of the merits of changing to a ‘company-centered governance’ from ‘creating more shareholder value-centered governance:’

More board-level attention to succession planning and leadership development
More board time devoted to strategies for the company’s continuing growth and renewal
More attention to risk analysis and political and environmental uncertainty
A strategic (rather than narrowly financial) approach to resource allocation
A stronger focus on investments in new capabilities and innovation
More-conservative use of leverage as a cushion against market volatility
Concern with corporate citizenship and ethical issues that goes beyond legal compliance

Conclusion:

Almost all domestic pharma companies in India are currently family run, mostly by the first or second-generation entrepreneurs, with well-defined and clearly established ownership pattern.

The glorious history of the family run Indian pharma business has started facing a more challenging future, especially in addressing the types of maladies, as epitomized in the above two recent media reports. With the ongoing process of ‘creating more shareholder value’ driven governance – almost totally scripted by the promoter or the key shareholders at the helm, the task ahead remains formidable. Additionally, the reports on Ranbaxy whistleblower’s narrative, prompted many to wonder the role of Independent Directors on the Board of strong promoter driven Indian pharma companies, besides others.

In this scenario, particularly to address the Governance related maladies effectively, a highly competent corporate leadership professionals should be empowered to steer the Indian pharma organizations, in general, from ‘creation of more shareholder value centric governance’ to a well-crafted ‘company centric governance’ process, in a well-calibrated manner and sooner.

By: Tapan J. Ray

Managing Pharma Investors’ Expectations When The Chips Are Down

Posted on June 19, 2017 by Tapan Ray

Triggered by several critical factors, over a relatively short period of time, a downward spiral is visible with most Indian Pharma stocks, with a significant erosion in market capitalization of many large players in the country.

A set of important factors has been fueling this current downturn since around the last four years. These include, issues related to serious regulatory non-compliance with US-FDA and other foreign drug regulators, pricing pressure both in the domestic and the overseas markets, including the United States, delayed approval of several new generic drugs in the number-one pharma market of the world, for various reasons. Initial rollout period of GST expected to commence on July 1, 2017, may also prompt some major readjustments in the distribution setting of many pharma organizations. This has been further compounded with the wholesalers’ and retailers’ demand for compensation for any losses on input credit arising out of this critical reform.

As eroding market cap generally leads to commensurately lower market valuation of a company, it adversely impacts company’s many business growth related activities, which encompasses attracting low cost – high value investments, and M&A related activities, besides many others. Consequently, this negative swing has alarmed many investors, making them more demanding on company performance – uninterrupted, almost at any cost, as it were.

Not much headroom for necessary course correction:

Unrelenting expectations of this nature from the investors, inclusive of activist shareholders, to continue driving the business growth engine up the steep slope of ever increasing return on investment, is not expected to die down, anytime soon.

They may not be willing to leave enough headroom for the respective pharma management teams to realign their growth path with the changing and challenging needs of time, if it adversely impacts business even in the short-term. Nonetheless, if it is not allowed, the tailspin is likely to continue, as has been happening since, at least, the last couple of years, pushing the business at a dangerous level of sustainability.

Such demand of the investors and shareholders, irrespective of the gravity of the situation where their respective companies are in, may not be too uncommon, even in the global arena. However, many experts are now raising a key question in this area. In this article, I shall try to look at this issue, not just from the investors’ perspective, but also from what the concerned pharma players can and should do in this area, sooner the better.

A pertinent question needs to be addressed:

This important and relevant question is: what is the accountability of the investors, if their pressure for performance when the company is at a crossroad of this nature, causes a long-term irreparable damage to the business?

The very issue has been discussed immaculately in an article titled, “The Error at The Heart of Corporate Leadership”, published in the May-June 2017 issue of the Harvard Business Review.

The paper reiterates that attributing ownership of the corporation to its investors involves a challenging problem of accountability. This is because, ‘shareholders or private investors have no legal duty to protect or serve the companies whose shares they own and are shielded by the doctrine of limited liability from legal responsibility for those companies’ debts and misdeeds.’ Moreover, they are both physically and psychologically distant from the activities of the companies they invest in, and may generally buy and sell these shares without restrictions.

Nevertheless, such strong and ever increasing demands put the top pharma managers under increasing pressure to deliver faster and more predictable returns, regardless of the headwind that the business is facing. The issue becomes more complex when temporary-holders of large blocks of shares intervene to reconstitute a company’s board, change its management, or restructure its finances to drive up the share price, only to sell out and move on to another target, without ever having to answer for their intervention’s impact on the company or other parties, the article highlights.

Export business – the pain points:

“Pharma stocks take a beating on renewed US FDA scrutiny” – flashed the headline of a recent media report of June 12, 2017. As I see it, in the export business, especially in the top pharma market in the world, there appears to be a strong possibility of further worsening the business environment, especially for the Indian drug exporters.

Wave after wave of US-FDA import bans involving many India made drug formulations and Active Pharmaceutical Ingredients (API), since over last four years, have significantly affected the short-term export sales of the domestic pharma exporters. Alongside, these have seriously dented the image of the Indian pharma players, collectively, which encompasses the critical area of regulatory compliance – to offer well-documented safe and effective drugs, as required by the regulator, for the patients in the United States.

The situation gets messier with media headlines, such as, one from Bloomberg’s on January 24, 2017, conveying to the world community – “Document Shredding at Night Raises FDA Eyebrows During India Visit.”

Besides current drug pricing pressure, President Donald Trump’s election pledge for local manufacturing of products consumed in the United States, for more job creation in the country, sends another possible storm signal in this area. This is serious too, as Indian generic drug producers cater to around 40 percent of the total generic drug consumption in America.

Overcoming the odds in export business:

While taking corrective and effective measures for a sustainable long-term business performance, doing the same things more intensely that precipitated the current crisis, would be counterproductive.

Improving the situation, would also call for a strong preparedness for launching new generic products at a regular interval. However, in tandem, there is a crying need for the concerned pharma companies to take a pause, and conclude, a well-structured and expert-guided corporate introspection and brainstorming process, on priority. This will help them to arrive at a set of actionable strategic plans to effectively address each of the pain points, in a meticulous and time-bound manner.

Investors must necessarily be taken on board by opening appropriate communication channels, accordingly. This is to enable them to understand and accept the reasons for a short-term pain for a sustainable long-term gain. The tangible results of corrective measures should subsequently unfold to all concerned, with minor course corrections on-the-run, wherever necessary.

Domestic business – the pain points:

This is again another complex issue, which is often manifested through pressure on drug prices. The blame for such a situation, though originates from somewhere else, generally falls on the Government and the drug price regulator, for obvious reasons. It has a palpable boomerang effect, that is brought out by various research studies, and captured in consumers and the expert opinion, such as one that was published by the Washington Post on June 14, 2017 with the title, “The pharmaceutical industry puts profits above people.”

In the United States, where the drug pricing pressure is widely believed to have primarily originated from the escalating cost containment pressure of the Government and the key health care providers – triggered by a dangerous drug-pricing trend. Whereas in India, in addition to the latter that is related to non-schedule branded generic drugs, it is mostly related high out of pocket expenses on drugs, attempts to dodge various drug price regulations, and ignoring several ethical marketing practices related issues. The net outcome of all this is growing trust deficit on the pharma industry, in general.

Let me illustrate this point with a very contemporary example. On May 18, 2017, Reuters reported, “India’s drug pricing regulator has demanded explanations from 65 domestic and global drug makers for selling new forms of essential diabetes and antibiotic drugs without its approval.” Interestingly, these companies reportedly include many big names, such as, Abbott Laboratories, Sanofi, Novartis and Indian firms such as Sun Pharmaceutical Industries and Lupin.

According to a circular of the National Pharmaceutical Pricing Authority (NPPA) of May 17, 2017, the above companies have allegedly launched formulations by altering an essential drug formulation with strength/dosage other than as specified in the Drug Price Control Order (DPCO) 2013 or combination with another drug not under price control, without even applying for price approval from NPPA as required. NPPA also doesn’t seem to be sure, whether such Fixed Dose Combinations (FDC) are rational or irrational and have the approval of the Central Drug Standard Control Organization (CDSCO).

If so, it’s indeed a sad development and a sorry state of affair, especially for those companies, which do some chest-thumping on ethics and compliance, often browbeating many Indian players, especially on USFDA related issues, besides pharma marketing practices.

As on date, Union Ministry of Health has banned several hundreds of such FDCs – on the ground of being irrational, launched without proper regulatory approval, lacking in therapeutic efficacy and safety profile, which may even cause harm to patients. March 11, 2016 notification of CDSCO banned 296 irrational FDCs.

However, many pharma players have succeeded in obtaining stay orders against almost all such regulatory bans from various High Courts. Nevertheless, the good news is, from July 2017, the Supreme Court is expected to hear all these cases, collectively. There could be another possible downturn in the market, if the Government wins the case.

Overcoming the odds in domestic business:

In these specific areas, there doesn’t seem to be any other option left to satisfy the long-term interest of the investors, other than addressing the ethics, values and compliance issues of the company on the ground, head on. It doesn’t really matter, what is displayed on the subject in their respective websites. Thus, in this area too, there is a crying need for a well-structured and expert-guided corporate introspection and brainstorming process to disrupt the status quo from its very root.

The above process would help the pharma players to arrive at a set of actionable strategic plans to effectively address the ethics and compliance issues in all the pain points – regulatory, marketing or financial, in a meticulous and time-bound manner. Alongside, all the stakeholders, including the investors, to be taken on board through customized content and the engagement platforms, to put the companies back into the long-term growth trajectory.

In conclusion:

Investors are very important, but if they aren’t an integral part of the corporate management team, should not try to overwhelm the business management process, especially for any short term financial gain. Attributing such authority to investors, involves a challenging problem of accountability for action, as they can get in or out of their investments at any time they choose to do so.

However, it’s also one of the key responsibilities of the management to listen to them, seriously. Take them on board by appropriately explaining to them in every critical situation, the broad strategic direction that the company would follow in pursuit of excellence. Thereafter, demonstrable outcome of all management action against the top operational goals, should be placed before them at a periodic interval, on an ongoing basis.

This process, if carried out with absolute transparency, integrity and seriousness, could help the Indian pharma players getting enough breathing space from the investors, for making the right operational interventions, before it’s too late.

Earlier this year, stepping down of former CEO of GSK – Andrew Witty, was reported to be due to pressure from investors for below par sales and profit in the past three years, besides a few other reasons. Another recent report of June 15, 2017 on “rebel investors looking to remake the board of Mylan” would possibly reinforce this point, further.

Outside the pharma industry, such a situation is not uncommon now, even in India. Besides, what happened recently in Tata Sons, the June 14, 2017 media headline highlighting “Infosys flags ‘activist shareholder’ as risk factor”, vindicates the same point, yet again.

Thus, managing pharma investors’ expectations through a process of continuous engagement with them, effectively, especially when the chips are down, as it is today, is so critical for the long-term success and sustainability of pharma business. Maintaining the status quo any further, would possibly make a high-flying pharma player to experience the strong gravitational pull, uncontrolled, with its its serious but avoidable consequences.

By: Tapan J. Ray

Is The Global Generic Drug Market Slowing Down?

Posted on June 5, 2017 by Tapan Ray

Driven by a strong environmental headwind, both within and outside the country, several pharma companies in India have recently started raising a red flag on their future earning guidance for the stock market, though citing quite different reasons altogether. Quoting the following two recent examples, I shall illustrate this point:

“For decades, the generic drug business has followed a simple model for growth: wait for a chemical medicine to go off patent, then copy it. But 2018 promises to be one of the industry’s last big bumper crops, with $27.8 billion worth of therapies losing protection. The following year’s haul drops by almost two thirds, and the year after it shrinks even further” – reported the May 27, 2017 article in Bloomberg titled, ‘Pharma Heir Seeks a New Holy Grail as Generic Drugs Run Dry,” quoting the promoter of Glenmark.

Another May 27, 2017 article by Reuters also quoted similar business sentiment, though for a much different reason, of the world’s fifth-largest generic drug maker – Sun Pharma, following similar concerns of Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories Ltd and Lupin Ltd. Here, the promoter of Sun Pharma said, “We may even have a single digit decline in consolidated revenue for full-year 2018 versus full-year 2017.”

These red flags, though signal different reasons, prompt some fundamental questions: Is the global generic drug market, especially the US, slowing down? If so, what then is the real reason of the anticipated business slow-down of large Indian pharma players? Is it due to lesser number of patented products going off-patent in the future years, or is it due to pricing pressure in various countries, including the US, or a combination of several other factors alongside? In this article, I shall deliberate on this emerging concern.

Global generic drug market – the past trend:

Several favorable environmental factors have been fueling the growth of generic drug prescriptions across the world, and the trend continues going north. Currently, the growth of generic drug prescriptions is outpacing the same for the patented ones. According to the April 2017 research study titled “Generic Drugs Market: Global Industry Trends, Manufacturing Process, Share, Size, Growth, Opportunity and Forecast 2017-2022”, published by IMARC, the global generic drug market was valued at around US$ 228.8 Billion in 2016, growing at a CAGR of around 9 percent during 2010-2016.

This trend has been well captured in numbers, from various different angles, in the September 2016 report of Evaluate Pharma, as follows:

Global trend of prescription generic drug sales (2008-2015)

Year	2008	2009	2010	2011	2012	2013	2014	2015
Global Rx Drug Sales (2008-15) (US$ Billion)	650	663	687	729	717	724	749	742
Growth per Year (%)		+2.0	+3.5	+6.1	(1.6)	+0.9	+3.5	(1.0)
Rx Generics Drug Sales (US $Billion)	53	53	59	65	66	69	74	73
Generics as % of Total Rx Drugs	8.2	8.0	8.6	9.0	9.2	9.5	9.9	9.9
% Market at risk to patent expiry or available for new generic drugs entry	3.0	4.0	4.0	5.0	7.0	4.0	5.0	6.0

(Table 1: Adapted from the report ‘World Preview 2016, Outlook to 2022’ of EvaluatePharma, September 2016)

The Table 1 shows, while the overall global sales growth of prescription drugs faltered during 2012-15 period, mainly due to after effects of patent expiry of several blockbuster drugs, the general trend of generic drug sales continued to ascend. As we shall see below, the projected trend in the succeeding years is not much different, either.

Global generic drug market – present, and projected future trend:

The global generic drug market is currently growing at a faster pace than the patented drugs, and this overall trend is likely to remain so in future too, as we shall find below.

Globally, North America, and particularly the US, is the largest market for generic drugs. According to the QuintilesIMS 2016 report, generic drugs saved patients and the US health care system US$227 billion in 2015. Although around 89 percent of the total prescriptions in the US are for generic drugs, these constitute just 27 percent of total spending for medicines. In other words, the share of patented drugs, though, just around 11 percent of total prescriptions, contribute 73 percent of the total prescription drug costs.

Backed by the support of Governments for similar reasons, Europe is, and will continue to register impressive growth in this area. Similarly, in Latin America, Brazil is the largest market for generic drugs, contributing 23 percent and 25 percent of the country’s pharma sector by value and by volume, respectively, in 2015.

Major growth drivers to remain the same:

The following major factors would continue to drive the growth of the global generic drug market:

Patent expiration of innovative drugs
Increasing aging population
Healthcare cost containment pressure, including out of pocket drug expenditure
Government initiatives for the use of low cost generic drugs to treat chronic diseases
Despite high price competition more leading companies are taking interest in generic drugs especially in emerging markets

India – a major global player for generic drugs:

India and China dominated the generic drug market in the Asia pacific region. India is the largest exporter of the generic drug formulations. A large number of drug manufacturing plants belonging to several Indian players have obtained regulatory approval from the overseas regulators, such as, US-FDA, MHRA-UK, TGA-Australia and MCC-South Africa. Consequently, around 50 percent of the total annual turnover of many large domestic Indian drug manufacturers comes from exports. The top global players in the generic drug market include Teva Pharmaceuticals, Novartis AG, Mylan, Abbott, Actavis Pharma and India’s own Sun Pharma.

No significant change in the future market trend is envisaged:

When I compare the same factors that fueled the growth of global prescription generic drug market in the past years (2008-2015) with the following year (2016), and the research-based projections from 2017-2022, no significant change in the market trend is visible.

Global trend of prescription generic drug sales (2015 – 2022)

Year	2015	2016	2017	2018	2019	2020	2021	2022
Global Rx Drug Sales (2015-22) (US$ Billion)	742	778	822	873	931	996	1060	1121
Growth per Year (%)	(-1.0)	+4.8	+5.7	+6.2	+6.6	+7.0	+6.5	+5.7
Rx Generics Drug Sales (US $Billion)	73	80	86	92	97	103	109	115
Generics as % of Total Rx Drugs	9.9	10.3	10.5	10.5	10.4	10.4	10.3	10.3
% Market at risk to patent expiry or available for new generic drugs entry	6.0	6.0	4.0	4.0	4.0	2.0	2.0	5.0

(Table 2: Adapted from the report ‘World Preview 2016, Outlook to 2022’ of EvaluatePharma, September 2016)

The Table 2 shows, the overall global sales growth trend of prescription drugs appears a shade better in 2008-15 period, even with the after effects of patent expiry (Table 1), as compared to 2016-22. The scope for entry of new generic drugs goes below 4 percent of the total prescription drug market only in two years – 2020 and 2021. Thus, any serious concern only on this count for a long-term growth impediment of the global generic drug market, post 2018, doesn’t seem to be based on a solid ground, and is a contentious one. Moreover, the sales trend of prescription generic drugs as a percentage of the total value of all prescription drugs, hovers around 10 percent in this statistical projection, which is again a shade better than around 9 percent of the past comparable years.

What triggered the major pricing pressure?

With its over 40 percent of the total pharmaceutical produce, predominantly generic drug formulations, being exported around the world, India has become one of the fastest growing global manufacturing hubs for medicinal products. According to Pharmaceutical Export Promotion Council of India (Pharmexcil), United States (US) is the largest market for the India’s pharma exports, followed by the United Kingdom (UK), South Africa, Russia, Nigeria, Brazil and Germany.

Since long, the largest pharma market in the world – the US, has been the Eldorado of pharma business across the globe, mostly driven by the unfettered freedom of continuously charging a hefty price premium in the country. Thus far, it has been an incredible dream run, all the way, even for many large, medium and small generic drug exporters from India.

However, ongoing activities of many large drug companies, dominated by allegedly blatant self-serving interests, have now given rise to a strong general demand on the Governments in different countries, including the US, to initiate robust remedial measures, soon. The telltale signs of which indicate that this no holds barred pricing freedom may not be available to pharma, even in the US, any longer.

Self-inflicted injury?

The situation where several major Indian generic companies are in today, appears akin to an avoidable self-inflicted injury, basically falling in the following two important areas. Nonetheless, even after the healing process gets over, the scar mark would remain for some more time, till the business becomes as usual. Hopefully, it will happen sooner than expected, provided truly ‘out of box’ corrective measures are taken, and followed up with a military precision.

Huge price hikes:

According to the Reuters report of September 11, 2016, US Department of Justice sent summons to the US arm of Sun Pharma – Taro Pharmaceutical Industries Inc. and its two senior executives seeking information on generic drug prices. In 2010, Sun Pharma acquired a controlling stake in Taro Pharmaceutical Industries.

On September 14, 2016, quoting a September 8, 2016 research done by the brokerage firm IIFL, ‘The Economic Times’ also reported that several large Indian generic drug manufacturers, such as, Sun Pharma, Dr. Reddy’s, Lupin, Aurobindo and Glenmark have hiked the prices of some of their drugs between 150 percent and 800 percent in the US. These apparently avoidable incidents fuel more apprehensions in the prevailing scenario. As I wrote in this Blog on September 12, 2016, the subject of price increases even for generic drugs reverberated during the last Presidential campaign in the US, as well.

Serious compromise with product quality standards:

Apprehensions on dubious quality standards of many drugs manufactured in India have now assumed a gigantic dimension with import bans of many India made generic drugs by foreign drug regulators, such as US-FDA, EMA and MHRA. Today, even smaller countries are questioning the Indian drug quality to protect their patients’ health interest. This critical issue has started gaining momentum since 2013, after Ranbaxy pleaded guilty and paid a hefty fine of US$ 500 million for falsifying clinical data and distributing allegedly ‘adulterated medicines’ in the United States.

Thereafter, it’s a history. The names of who’s who of Indian drug manufacturers started appearing in the US-FDA and other overseas drug regulators’ import ban list, not just for failing to conform to their quality standards, but also for willful non-compliance with major cGMP requirements, besides widely reported incidents of data fudging and falsification of other drug quality related documents.

Global murmurs on generic drug quality among doctors:

There are reported murmurs both among the US and the Indian doctors on the generic drug quality standards, but for different drug types and categories.

According to the Reuters article published on March 18, 2014, titled “Unease grows among US doctors over Indian drug quality”, many US doctors expressed serious concerns about the quality of generic drugs supplied by Indian manufacturers. This followed the ‘import bans’ by the USFDA and a flurry of huge Indian drug recalls there. Such concerns are so serious, as India supplies about 40 percent of generic and over-the-counter drugs used in the United States, making it the second-biggest generic drug supplier after Canada.

While the doctors in the US raise overall quality concerns on the products manufactured by the large Indian branded generic companies, Indian doctors are quite at ease with the branded generics. They generally raise quality concerns only on generic drugs without any brand names.

Thus, a lurking fear keeps lingering, as many feel that Indian drug manufacturing quality related issues may not necessarily be confined only to exports in the developed world, such as, the United States, European Union or Canada. There is no reason to vouch for either, that such gross violations are not taking place with the medicines consumed by patients in India, or in the poorer nations of Africa and other similar markets.

In conclusion:

Sun Pharma has publicly expressed its concern that pricing pressure in the US may adversely impact its business in 2018. There doesn’t seem to be any major surprise on this statement, as many believe it was likely to happen, though for a different reason, since when the global media reported in September 2015: “FDA revokes approval for Sun Pharma’s seizure drug over compliance issues.”

As investors are raising concerns, the following comment by the Co-Chairman and Chief Executive of Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories, reported by ‘Financial Express’ on August 24, 2015, well captures the vulnerability of Indian generic drug business in this area: “The U.S. market is so big that there is no equivalent alternative. We just have to get stronger in the U.S., resolve our issues, build a pipeline and be more innovative to drive growth.”

Inadequate remedial measures could unleash this pressure to reach a dangerous threshold, impacting sustainable performance of the concerned companies. On the other hand, adequate remedial action, both strategic and operational, could lead to significant cost escalation, with no space available for its neutralization through price increases, gradually squeezing the margin. It will be a tight rope walk for many in the coming years.

As research reports indicate, the global generic drug market is not and will not be slowing down in the long term, not even in India. There may be some temporary ups and downs in the market due to pricing pressure, and the number of novel products going off-patent in some years. Nevertheless, the traditional business models being followed by some large companies may retard their respective business growth, considerably.

The pricing pressure is a real one. However, from the Indian perspective, I reckon, it’s primarily a self-inflicted injury, just as the other major one – the drug import bans on the ground of serious compromise with product quality standards. Many Indian generic drug players don’t believe so, and probably would never will, publicly.

By: Tapan J. Ray

PILMAN

A Tapan Ray Website

Tag Archives: USFDA

A Game-Changing Non-Covid Drug Approval In the Pandemic Milieu

Criticality of Drug Quality In The Moment Of Truth

‘Made-to-Measure’ Marketing for ‘Made-to-Measure’ Medicines

For Improving Drug Quality in India – A Bizarre Intent

Patent Expiry No Longer End of The Road

Pharma Governance Maladies and Corporate Leadership

Managing Pharma Investors’ Expectations When The Chips Are Down

Is The Global Generic Drug Market Slowing Down?