Gurminder Marwaha

I consider myself to be a fit and healthy person. I go to the gym at least five nights a week and play football. I also (try to) eat healthily — though I usually cave in to the temptations of chocolate. So why is it that whenever I go abroad I always seem to catch a cold, bug or some other ailment? And why, instead of going to the nearest pharmacy, do I stay in my hotel room and feel sorry for myself? 

It's a matter of trust. I will only take medicines that I have purchased in the UK — which may sound utterly ridiculous, but having spoken to family, friends and colleagues it seems I am not the only one. 

Take, for example, my trip to Interphex last month. While over in New York, I caught the flu. Not a cold or "man-flu", but proper flu — with the fever, chills, sweating, aches and pain. For the first time in my career, I missed an exhibition day as I ended up staying in bed. What's worse, is that it was the day I was flying back home and my flight wasn't until 7pm — I had a whole day of suffering ahead. I did go into a local pharmacy to purchase a flu remedy, but because I couldn't recognize any of the brands or names I simply didn't buy anything. Luckily, just before leaving the house, I'd packed a half-full box of generic painkillers, which did come in useful.  

   It seems that many people, when they go abroad, take their own medicines for most, if not all, eventualities. The reasons include that they are happy with a specific brand; they feel that medicines purchased from their own country are somehow safer than those bought abroad; and because people feel that language differences may cause problems if they are ill when away from home. 

How can we improve trust in medicines bought in foreign countries? After all, they will have been manufactured to the same standards and specifications as the medicines back home. Should pharmaceutical manufacturers roll out the same branding for a particular medicine regardless of where it's being sold in the world? Then there wouldn't be any problems walking into any chemist and asking for a specific remedy. 

Having said that, by the time you receive this magazine, I'll be well into my three week holiday in the Far East; and yes, I have packed enough medicines by brands that I recognize and trust. 

Articles

How can we improve trust in medicines bought in foreign countries? After all, they will have been manufactured to the same standards and specifications as the medicines back home.

Trust in medicines

I feel that the European pharmaceutical industry is coming up to an important set of crossroads. Some might say it's even beginning to show signs of stalling before it even reaches them. Why? Because chasing it hard is the pharmaceutical sector of the Far East, and way ahead of it is its US counterpart.  

The European pharmaceutical sector (and I'm including biopharmaceuticals too) has never faced a bigger decision to make. Does it continue as it is, lamely arguing to anyone who will listen why it's better than its competitors in the hope that it can catch up with the US whilst at the same time evade the Far East? Or, can it reclaim it's rightful place as the leading pharmaceutical region in the world by following a new route?  

Whilst much has been made of lucrative prospects in the US and how much cheaper comparable products coming out of Asia are, it's about time the EU stood up for itself and started championing how good we do things over here. OK, so it's unlikely that we're going to be able to compete with bulk raw material manufacturers from the East, but in the grand scheme of things is that really important? No one is better than Europe when it comes to innovative products at the forefront of the industry, and it's about time we stand up and be counted. Whilst it's easy to whine on about price wars and brain drains, we should be doing more to keep our best people and companies in the EU and letting the world know about our capabilities. 

Part of the problem stems from harmony, or rather the lack of. Whilst Europe is supposed to act as a single entity with everyone sticking together, the reality is very different. Countries seem to operate to their own agenda and it's going to take someone prominent in the industry to take the initiative and say "Hey, if we want to become the leading pharma industry in the world we need to start working as one and stick to what we're good at" — or something similar to that. 

It's an important time for our industry and we certainly don't need any empty vessels, because as the saying goes, they make the most sound. 

No one is better than Europe when it comes to innovative products at the forefront of the industry

Decision time

Online shopping has become something of a phenomenon during the past decade. Why bother trawling through shops when you can order just about anything online — you don't even have to leave the comfort of your own seat, let alone the house. A few clicks and it's completed. OK, so your purchase may take a couple of days longer to arrive compared with going to a shop, but the savings far outweigh the delay. And besides, it's always nicer and much more exciting to get parcels through the post. 

I am happy to admit that I do most of my shopping online — a favourite is grocery shopping. Not that it gives me any pleasure; far from it. But, it's a lot easier than going to a supermarket full of screaming kids, unhelpful staff and coming out with 'beep beep beep' from the tills ringing in your ears. It takes less than 30 minutes to do a weekly shop online and they deliver right to my door. Perfect. 

One of the best things to happen to online shopping has been web-based auction sites. There's something for everyone on these, and if you're quick enough you can grab an absolute bargain. But they have become more than just online auction houses; they are now proper market places, fully fledged institutions. 

So could the online auction formula be extended to the pharmaceutical industry? For me, the customer should always come first and this would be a great way to make some big savings. Vendors needn't worry either — the auction process would help the best vendors make some good money. Something for everyone then!  

Of course, the reality is that this would never happen. The market may witness cheap imitations and rip off merchants — though judging by some comments that I have heard recently, this is happening to a degree anyway. I guess the regulatory authorities wouldn't be too pleased either. 

It's a shame really, because it would be quite exciting to watch pharmaceutical companies from across the globe battling it out to find the cheapest raw materials and process equipment. The serious point is that it would certainly bring our heavily fragmented industry much closer together — it would also be a lot more fun, and that never hurts anybody. 

So could the online auction formula be extended to the pharmaceutical industry? It might be a great way to make some big savings.

Online auctions

Just after Christmas, I read a report in a newspaper describing how it is easier to contract HIV in the villages surrounding Zambia's Lake Mweru than it is to catch fish in the water — and that's not through a lack of aquatic life. An awful statistic, but one that didn't really surprise me — after all, most of us are fully aware of the HIV problems in Africa. 

What is alarming, however, is that while much is made of drug companies and their seeming reluctance to provide free/cheap/generic products to help stem the rise in the number of people affected, they, and organizations such as Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF), face an uphill struggle to get to what is arguably the heart of the matter — education. It's all well and good providing drugs for people who need them, but it becomes a lot more difficult if that group of people continually gets bigger and bigger. Whose fault is it if people choose to ignore the warnings about the effects of HIV, or are ignorant of the problem in the first place? Drug manufacturers cannot be blamed for the failure of humans to understand or believe the risks involved in their behaviour. 			

While we applaud the work of MSF and the World Health Organization, and no doubt the stance of drug companies is slowly changing, we have to look at how the wider issues could be addressed. It's all very well blaming drug companies; after all, they are an easy target because they have the potential solutions. But it needs drugs combined with properly implemented educational initiatives to fully raise awareness in the world's poorest continent.  

And that's an area where drug manufacturers could help — assisting governments of the poorest countries to set up community programmes. In a way, you almost feel that its the governments themselves that need educating. Not only would this help their populations to better understand the wider issues, it would also go some way in demonstrating that drug manufacturers are taking HIV in poor countries seriously and that they are able to look beyond the profits. It's not just about fancy websites — no good for a population that can barely feed itself. It's about providing the right infrastructure for people to prevent and/or deal with HIV. But, it's not something the pharmaceutical industry can do by itself, and hence the blame cannot lie solely at its feet. 

It's all well and good providing drugs for people who need them, but it becomes a lot more difficult if they choose to ignore the warnings

Seeing through the profit

And so here we are again. Doesn't seem all that long ago when I was wishing everyone a Happy New Year.  Now, what only seems like a few months on, and I'm saying it again. Time flies when you're having fun or is it time flies by as you fast approach 30? Answers on a postcard please. 

Before I launch into what the PTE team calls 'my monthly rant', I would like to introduce you to a slightly revised magazine, as the publication has been undergoing something of a facelift in recent months. The essence of the magazine has most certainly not changed; however, this year sees the introduction of a number of new features that I should highlight. Each issue will feature a biopharmaceutical/bioprocessing article, in addition to a new bio products section. The products section has been expanded and each issue will also feature Spotlight — a new column looking at the bio/pharmaceutical markets as a whole, and discussing new opportunities and where threats to Europe may come from. The remainder of the magazine will remain familiar to you, though the design may look slightly different. 

Moving on, and at the beginning of December, I attended a bioProcess UK conference in Liverpool (UK) titled "Creating an intellectual powerhouse in bioprocessing" (

). The main theme of the event was to get delegates, speakers and exhibitors talking about and discussing how the UK can develop its bioprocessing industry — mainly through closer links between academia and industry. There were some case studies from key players of major biopharmaceutical manufacturers (stirring stuff of course), but the really interesting part was saved for the panel sessions. The strength of the US and Asian bio markets was discussed (and attacked) at great length. The argument centred on European bio companies not having the money to compete with the US/Asia in terms of innovation and seeing products through to completion, and it was suggested by a number of attendees that Europeans should work much closer together and act as service providers. Stick to what we're good at, they said. 

This begs the question: Will we be innovative enough if we just become service providers? Surely our best scientists aren't going to hang around to take orders when they can earn much more in different parts of the world and give orders. And doesn't it mean that the bio companies of the US and the Far East will see us as perennial whipping boys? If there were prizes for biopharmaceutical achievement, the US would be first, Asia would be second and guess who would be left holding the wooden spoon. 

Will we be innovative enough if we just become service providers?

Wooden spoons

We are now well into the 21st century, and technology across a whole host of industries is moving at a breathtaking pace. Mobile phones can pretty much do anything; the next generation of games consoles will be released either side of Christmas; computers continue to get faster and smaller; and even the way we buy our music is being fundamentally questioned as more and more people choose to download rather than go into a shop and buy CDs. 

But why does the pharmaceutical industry give the impression that it is one of the few industries, if not the only one, that seems to be stuck in a time warp? Perhaps that's because it is.  

For example, PAT is something that the automotive industry put into practice more than 20 years ago, with many other industries following suit shortly after. The pharmaceutical industry has only recently realized the benefits of PAT, with FDA putting together a package of "guidelines" that suggest PAT can be implemented, but the feeling in the industry is that no one is quite sure how to put it into practice. Whereas other industries adopted PAT quicker than you could say MP3 player, the pharmaceutical sector is, as usual, worried about the "cost implications".   

I believe it's about time the pharmaceutical industry has a good long look at itself and works out how best to bring itself into the modern era. Do you think that in 50 years' time drugs will still take as long to discover and manufacture as they do now? If you look at the way this industry operates, and more importantly the way it is regulated, then the answer is probably yes. In the pharmaceutical industry, the words "change" and "modernize" are shunned. 

Surely, pharma must be looking at the next generation of manufacturing processes. However, it wouldn't surprise me if the human race has colonized Mars long before this industry brings itself into the 21st century. Who is to blame? Regulatory authorities for sure, but I will also point a finger at politicians — two groups linked by their love of red tape. It's what keeps them in their jobs. 

Hopefully, pharma will realize that money invested now to update and modernize the industry will reap benefits in the future. Shouldn't it be that where pharma leads, others must follow — and not the other way around? 

The human race will have colonized Mars long before the pharmaceutical industry brings itself into the 21st century.