Friday, September 25, 2009

Grindeks looks to expand

The Latvian firm, Grindeks has made a few announcements recently which reveal the firm is aiming to expand its business. On 19th August, the firm reported that it was considering establishing injections manufacturing in Latvia, and was looking at the territory of Riga Free Port as a possible site to construct a new plant, because of economic incentives and tax allowances offered there. However, the firm added that purchasing an existing plant would also be an option. This was followed on 7th September with an announcement that the firm was considering options to develop its ointment business. Here, Grindeks is looking at two possibilities: either move its existing operations in Tallinn, Estonia, to Latvia, or remain in Tallinn, and presumably develop the plant there. As yet, no decision has been made.

Grindeks has, in recent years, been undertaking an investment programme, and these recent announcements are in line with that. In January 2009, the firm opened a new final dosage forms plant; the firm commented that this had been the largest investment project in the company's history, with LVL9.1 million (US$16.8 million) invested over two years. It is anticipated that the new plant will increase manufacturing productivity and capacity substantially, to 1.5 billion tablets and 500 million capsules per year.

Additionally, in August this year, Grindeks also announced that it had introduced a new active pharmaceutical ingredient, ursodeoxycholic acid, used in the treatment of hepatic and gallstone diseases. The new API represents a new medical therapeutic group for the firm, and has been developed as part of a co-operation agreement with the German firm, Marenis Pharma; once again evidence of Grindeks' plans to expand. The firm also announced it had started construction on a new manufacturing unit with an investment of nearly LVL6 million (US$12.5 million), connected with the development of this API. This again is an important move for the company; Germany is a relatively unexplored territory for Grindeks, whose traditional markets have been those of Central and Eastern Europe, the Baltic States and the CIS. Although Grindeks has co-operated with Merck in Germany, its presence there has been limited. The development of new APIs is of course also significant. Despite the economic turmoil of recent months, Grindeks appears to still be on course to expand its horizons.

Ian Platts – Editor, World Generic Markets

Tuesday, September 8, 2009

Canadian manufacturers squabble over statistics

Canada’s Patented Medicine Prices Review Board (PMPRB) has issued its Annual Report for 2008, leading to claims and counter-claims by the country’s generic and branded industry organisations. The Canadian Generic Pharmaceutical Association (CGPA) used the report to criticise the branded industry, noting that for the eighth year in a row, the branded industry had failed to reach its threshold of 10% of their Canadian revenues being ploughed into Domestic R&D spending; this having been a commitment made by the branded industry in 1987, with the adoption of amendments to the Patent Act. In response, Canada’s Research-Based Pharmaceutical Companies (Rx&D) has sought to play down the last eight years of failing to reach the target, arguing instead that its member companies’ total investments in R&D in Canada over the last 20 years has averaged more than 10% of sales. Of course, both sides are correct in their assertions, depending on how the data is analysed. It is worth noting also that the PMPRB’s report states that Rx&D members accounted for 89.4% of all reported R&D expenditures in 2008, with patentees reporting a total of C$1.3 billion (US$1.2 billion) of R&D expenditures.

However, whilst the overall average for the last 20 years is for over 10% of sales put into domestic R&D, the figures presented by the PMPRB’s report show that the branded industry only met and / or exceeded the 10% figure in eight years, between 1993 and 2000, whilst Rx&D member companies managed to meet and / or exceed the figure in ten years, between 1993 and 2002. Despite the occasional blip, the ratio figure has been falling since those years, having reached 8.1% for all patentees in 2008, and 8.9% for Rx&D members.

Rx&D brought attention to wider issues, noting that the PMPRB’s report also showed that whilst the Consumer Price Index climbed by 2.3% in Canada in 2008, prices for patented medicines rose by only 0.1% during the same period. The organisation added that over the past decade, prices for innovative medicines were around 7% below the international median. However, against that, the report also shows that Canadian prices were the third highest of seven comparator countries, behind only the US and Germany. However, the US was highest by some margin, skewing the figures somewhat.

The PMPRB’s report gives a detailed look at the state of the Canadian branded industry’s finances, but as always, its findings are open to interpretation of the statistics. The claims and counterclaims of both the branded and generic industries hold up when viewed in the right context, despite apparently being at odds with each other. Perhaps then, the value of the report is that it shows that both sides could do better.

Ian Platts - Editor, World Generic Markets