The debate on the “Do No Significant Harm” principle in R&D

June 30, 2023

amendment 165, CESAER, Christian Ehler, DNSH, Do No Significant Harm, EIC, environment protection, ethical objectives, ethics by design, EU funding programmes, EUA, European Commission, European University Association, framework programmes, fundamental research activities, green deal, guidelines, Horizon Europe, Mariya Gabriel, Pillar I, Pillar II, Science Europe, Science|Business, significant harm, situatedness, Taxonomy regulation, written answer, written question

by Giulianna Miglierini

The “Do No Significant Harm” (DNSH) principle is a widely diffused approach aimed to guarantee the respect of ethical limits while dealing with many kinds of activities. It is the case, for example, of the use of big data to conduct behavioural studies, or of health research aimed to be of help to society without hurting anyone. Available frameworks regulating the ethical approach to research usually focus on the protection of participants against unwanted, potentially harmful effects resulting from the study. Examples of such frameworks are the 1964 Declaration of Helsinki and the 1979 Belmont Re-port, which do not mention the protection of other people and of the environment.

The DNSH and the European Green Deal

The introduction of the Do Not Significant Harm principle within the Taxonomy regulation (EU 2020/825) represents the first example of its extensive application aimed to prevent unintended damages to the environment. According to the regulation, beneficiaries of financial support from EU institutions are expected to assess the possible negative climate and environmental impacts of their projects, and to avoid any activity that may negatively impact the sustainability objectives of the European Green Deal.

These include six main areas of attention, i.e. mitigation of and adaptation to climate change, sustainable use and protection of water and marine resources, control and prevention of pollution, the transition to a circular economy, and the protection and restoration of biodiversity and ecosystems.

The inclusion of the DNSH principle in the Taxonomy regulations means that the above-mentioned objectives would apply to any EU funded activity, including framework research programmes such as Horizon Europe.

Many critics arose from this move of the Commission, as it may greatly affect the effective capacity of researchers to plan and realise their activities. As a part of the debate, MEP member Christian Ehler presented in July 2021 a written question to the Commission aimed to clarify how the DNSH aspects of a project would be evaluated and scored during the assessment of the proposals, and the impact they may have on the final outcome of such assessment.

The written answer provided by EU Commissioner Mariya Gabriel stated that “the application of the ‘Do No Significant Harm’ principle in Horizon Europe is voluntary at project level”, and that its inclusion in the project description will have no impact on the assessment of the proposal. According to the Commission, no declaration of projects compliance with the principle is re-quested, and no undue increase of the administrative burden for applicants is present. Instead, the reference made to the DNSH principle would only aim to raise awareness about the environmental risks linked to research activities and encourage the identification and mitigation of potential measures.

A second written question presented in August 2022 asked the Commission to provide further details, i.e. how many applications under Horizon Europe included the DNSH principle in the project description, the percentage of 2021/2022 budget covered by DNSH and the number of evaluations in which the DNSH principle was used in the assessment of the application.

The written answer by Commissioner Gabriel indicated references to the DNSH principle in proposals vary according to its relevance to the specific thematic area and technology readiness levels. Only 2.6% of proposals referred to parts of the programme that make no explicit reference to DNSH considered the principle; this percentage reached 29.6% for applications referred to parts of the programme making explicit reference to it (data 12 August 2022). Commissioner Gabriel also said almost half of the budget of the work programme for 2021-2022 made explicit reference to the DNSH principle, and that all EU actions and policies have to be consistent with the objectives of the Paris Agreement and the Green Deal oath ‘do no harm’.

The ongoing debate

No matter to say, the position of the European Commission to extend the implementation of the DNSH principle across all research activities activated a reach debate within the R&I community. The initial objections by MEPs were based, according to Mr. Ehler, on the possible absence of “democratically legitimised criteria” (read more on Science|Business).

According to a viewpoint article published in Science|Business, the DNSH approach chosen by the Commission would be not the right way to address the issue of environmental sustainability. “Rather, research and innovation policy should be reconfigured to allow researchers to ‘stay with’ the harms they (might) do”, wrote the authors. The alternative to DNSH sees greater attention towards a better understanding of what really constitutes a “harm”. According to the authors, a definition of “significant harm” should be agreed upon between humans, non-humans, and ecosystems experiencing harm, thus avoiding any technocratically and unilaterally handed down definition. They also discuss the appropriateness of the concept of ‘situatedness’ in order to reach a suitable definition of significant harm.

Key to this vision should be the “understanding that there is no universal, objective viewpoint from which one might determine which research is beneficial or harmful, for whom, and to what degree”. To this instance, elements to be considered in the assessment include the time needed for the harm to manifest, its geographical location or the involvement of marginalised actors. Furthermore, the approach adopted by the EU Commission would not be suited to solve the ambiguities. A possible solution would be represented by the “creation of spaces where ambiguous harms can be appropriately engaged”.

The associations representing the academic and scientific world also took a position against the extension of the DNSH principle to all projects under European R&I framework programmes.

The European University Association (EUA), CESAER (representing universities of Science and Technology) and Science Europe (on behalf of major public organisations funding or performing research in the EU) jointly published a statement to ask support to the Parliament as for the approval of amendment 165, focused on feasibility, appropriateness and proportionality of all programmes and activities, in accordance with the relevant sector-specific rules. The associations also underline that the implementation of the DNSH principle should not be counterproductive and weaken the contribution of the R&I community to sustainability and green objectives.

According to EUA, clear guidelines are missing on how the principle should be implemented in practical terms. Furthermore, the broad application of the DNSH principle might especially undermine the possibility to undertake fundamental research activities. As for now, the principle applies only to European Innovation Council projects, and missions and clusters of Pillar II of particular relevance for their environmental outcomes and impacts.

In a position paper of October 2022, CAESAR asked, among others, for an “ethics by design” approach, based on a ethical checklist to be included in the design phase of projects. Briefings with the proposal evaluator and project reviewer should also be improved in order to clarify when the DNSH principle has to be taken into account.

According to Science Europe, the implementation of the principle should not add an additional administrative burden to researchers and increase the complexity of project proposals and evaluations. The association also asks for the broader application of the DNSH principle to be preceded by a thorough assessment of its current implementation in Horizon Europe.

Trends for the future of the pharmaceutical manufacturing

April 21, 2023

AI, Annex 1, Artificial Intelligence, aseptic manufacturing, automation, bioavailability, biological medicines, collaborations, Connect in Pharma, connected devices, data integrity, data scientists, data security, data sharing, diabetes, digital tools, digitalisation, drug delivery systems, dry powder inhalers, eco-friendly drug delivery systems, energy efficient technologies, Industry 4.0, inhalation technology, injectable medicines, Internet of Medical Things, investments, IoMT, machine learning, MDR regulation, nasal delivery devices, partnerships, patient adherence, patient compliance, patient safety, Pharmaceutical development, pharmaceutical manufacturing, pharmaceutical packaging, realtime collection of data, recycled materials, regulatory compliance, report, reusable devices, secondary packaging, sensors, single-use devices, supply chain data sharing, survey, sustainability, tech-driven innovation, trianing

By Giuliana Miglierini

The technological evolution of pharmaceutical manufacturing towards the full implementation of the Industry 4.0 paradigm is rapidly advancing. Digitalisation of productions is supported by the wide spread of automation, devices connected to the Internet of Things, and machine learning algorithms able to keep entire processes under control. Looking at pharmaceutical development, new types of treatments are emerging, also requiring a retuning of current approaches. Results from a survey among experts and industry insiders (56 respondents from 13 different countries) run by Connect in Pharma show new challenges are to be faced in the incoming years by the pharmaceutical industry in order to maintain its market position.

The combined value of the global pharmaceutical market in 2022 is estimated to be approx $650 billion. The main component reflects pharmaceutical manufacturing (US$ 526 billion in 2022, data Insight Slice), while the global pharmaceutical packaging market value is roughly US$131 billion (data Fact.MR).

Many different factors supporting the transformation of pharmaceutical manufacturing have been identified by Connect in Pharma, ranging from ageing of population to Covid19 and Ukraine crisis, to climate change and pressures on energy costs, up to the shortage of healthcare professionals. The final conclusions and opportunities identified by the report indicate new partnerships and collaborations (mainly with startups, and small and medium-sized companies) will remain fundamental to support competitiveness, together with growing investments in tech-driven innovations. Involvement of patients and healthcare professionals in identifying unmet needs and optimal solutions is another item to be considered in order to increase adherence to therapy, suggests the report.

Digitalisation still waiting to full exploit its potential

Innovation in automation and digitalisation of processes has been introduced in the pharmaceutical sector at a slower pace compared to other industrial sectors, due to its higher regulatory barriers. About one third (28%) of respondents to the survey indicated their companies are developing artificial intelligence (AI) or other digital tools for application in the manufacturing and packaging process. The main drivers towards the implementation of such systems are more efficient data collection, reduction of manufacturing down times and human errors, and the use of machine learning to support continuous manufacturing. Better workflow integration and anticounterfeiting, and the ability to share supply chain data with regulators are also relevant. These are all objectives that would need to provide new specific training to the workforce, e.g. on AI or tools for augmented reality.

One of the main barriers that, according to the report, is still slowing down the full potential of AI and digitalisation in the pharmaceutical industry is represented by the need to comply to regulations, including data integrity and security. The human factor may also prove relevant, as many people (including top management) may be reluctant to accept this change in technology. The availability of data scientists with a deep knowledge of the pharmaceutical sector is another critical point to be addressed.

Advances in drug delivery technologies

Connect in Pharma’s report also shed light on some drug delivery technologies that, despite not being an absolute novelty, are gaining relevance for the development of new products and treatments.

The moving of pharmaceutical pipelines towards a continuously increasing number of new biologic / biosimilar products, including mRNA-based and gene therapies, requires the availability of manufacturing and packaging capacities able to accommodate the specific needs of such often very unstable macromolecules. New drug delivery systems have been developed in recent years to provide answers to this need, among which is inhalation technology.

Dry powder inhalers and nasal delivery devices are the preferred formulations for the 50% of respondents to the survey that indicated actions are ongoing to develop new products using inhalation technologies. According to the report, these devices might prove particularly useful to deliver drugs that need to rapidly pass the blood-brain barrier in order to become effective, as well as for the delivery of vaccines. Fast absorption and higher bioavailability compared to other routes of administration are other elements of interest for inhalation technologies, which is also believed to be able to contribute to the reduction of carbon footprint.

Once again, the regulatory environment resulting from the entry into force of the EU Medical Devices Regulation (especially for drug-device combination products), together with the need to demonstrate patient safety and satisfactory bioavailability of these devices, are among the main barriers to their development, says the report. Inhalation technologies may also give rise to a new generation of delivery devices connected to the Internet of Medical Things (IoMT).

Another major trend identified by Connect in Pharma refers to the development of new drug delivery systems for injectable medicines (50% of respondents). This area is greatly impacted by the entry into force of the revised Annex 1 to GMPs, on 25 August 2023, that will increase the requirements for aseptic manufacturing. According to the report, main areas of innovation in this field may include new devices for injectable drug delivery, namely targeted to diabetes (the leading area of innovation), intravitreal ocular injection, autoimmune diseases, oncology, respiratory therapy, and pain management.

Connected devices

Diabetes is a highly relevant field of innovation also with respect to the implementation of connected devices, those embedded sensors and electronics allow for the real-time collection of data on self-administration of the therapy by patients, and their forwarding to health professionals. AI algorithms further enhance the potential of connected devices delivering diabetes treatments, as they support the real-time monitoring of insulin concentration in blood, and the consequent level of insulin delivered by the device. According to Connect in Pharma, other positive characteristics arising from the use of connected devices refer to the possible increase of patient adherence and compliance to treatment, resulting in improved patient outcomes and more personalised treatment.

Regulatory barriers are once again a main burden to the wider spread of connected devices, says the report, due for instance to the ultimate control over the sharing of data, and the choice if to implement single-use or reusable devices. Manufacturing costs, cybersecurity, and patient hesitancy are other hurdles identified by respondents to the survey.

The challenges for sustainability

The green policies put in place especially in the EU are calling industry to revise its processes and products to decrease their environmental impact, improve sustainability of manufacturing and packaging processes, so to eventually meet the climate targets fixed for 2050. According to the report, the global healthcare sector would be responsible for 4.4% of global net emissions. Connect in Pharma’s survey indicates 66% of involved companies are working to implement more sustainable practices. These may include for example the use of recycled materials in secondary packaging, the implementation of energy efficient technologies, and the development of more ecofriendly drug delivery systems. Costs have been identified as the main barrier to transition, together with the lack of common definitions. According to some of the experts, a wider use of data to monitor manufacturing systems and processes may help in improving the overall efficiency and in lowering the carbon footprint. Transport, for example, has a great impact on the sustainability of packaging.

ECA’s guide to compliant equipment design

March 31, 2023

3D/6D rule, austenitic stainless steels, automated systems, calibration, cleaning procedures, cleaning- in-place, cleanroom design, computerised systems, contamination, CrNiMo steels, cross-contamination, data integrity, data protection, design life cycle, easy to clean, ECA Foundation, EHEDG, electrical engineering, energy level, equipment, equipment design, GMP compliance, guidance document, hygienic system design, iapplicable technical rules, intended use, ISO standards, materials selection, morphology, open and closed equipment, pharmaceutical manufacturing, pharmaceutical production, pipework and fittings, process contact surfaces, process control technology, product quality, qualification, regulatory compliance, risk analysis, surface treatment methods, topography, URS, user requirement specifications

By Giuliana Miglierini

The legislative evolution of the last decades emphasised requirements for equipment used in pharmaceutical productions. This is even more true with the entry into force of the new Annex 1 to the GMPs, characterised by many new requirements impacting on different manufacturing processes (i.e. production of water for injection, sterilisation, Form-Fill-Seal and Blow-Fill-Seal technologies, single use systems, lyophilisation, etc.).

Each pharmaceutical process requires the careful design of the needed equipment in order to provide the expected efficiency and performance. Furthermore, some equipment may be used for different industrial applications (e.g. pharmaceutical, cosmetic or food), thus needing a fine tuning to reflect relevant requirements. In pharmaceutical manufacturing, a further step of complexity may be represented by the need to handle highly potent active pharmaceutical ingredients, requiring isolators to segregate production, etc.

To facilitate the correct design of equipment compliant to GMPs, a new guidance document has been published by the ECA Foundation. The document was initially drafted in German by a task force of experts in pharmaceutical technology and engineering and published by Concept Heidelberg, and it has now been translated in English

Elements relevant to reach compliance

The first part of the document discusses general requirements that should always be part of the design of GMP-compliant equipment. Four different points of attention are listed: the equipment must not adversely affect the product quality, it must be easy to clean, it must comply with applicable technical rules, and it must be fit for its intended use.

As for the first point, “The question is rather what is tolerable without adversely affecting the product quality”, states the guidance. Avoidance of contamination and cross-contamination are the main goals of cleaning activities, both for sterile and non-sterile medicinal products. There are several issues to be taken in mind from this perspective, including the presence of endotoxins, sealing points, the efficiency of cleaning-in-place (CIP) processes, or the presence of unreachable dead leg areas. According to the guidance, the 3D/6D rule for the prevention of dead legs in water systems often used for specification would not always be correctly applied, due to some confusion in terminology. Official GMPs are also deemed “very vague”, as they are not drafted by engineers and apply to an extremely wide range of different equipment and processes. “Consequently, the question is, which technical rules have to be followed or where the actual state of the art can be looked up”, says the document. Many different references are possible, from pharmacopeia monographs and regulatory guidelines, to ISO standards, and other documents published by international professional bodies.

Qualification and calibration of equipment should always be targeted to the specific product, as it is an essential in proving compliance to the intended use. Regulatory compliance of submitted documentation is not less important, and it greatly impacts on change control and implementation of new productive technologies.

Risk analysis (RA) is the tool introduced in 2005 by ICH Q9 to evaluate all items which may impact on the design of productive processes and related equipment. There is no standard methodology to run risk analysis, the choice depends on the process/product under assessment. According to the guidance, RA can be performed both from the perspective of the product and the equipment, the latter being also considered a GMP risk analysis.

Design and choice of materials

Materials (and coating materials where relevant) used to build pharmaceutical equipment should be completely inert. Pharmaceutical equipment must comply with the EC Directive on Machinery 2006/42/EC and DIN EN ISO 14159. The ECA guidance discusses material selection (plastics or stainless steel); hygienic system design is also addressed by many different guidelines, e.g. those published by the European Hygienic Engineering and Design Group (EHEDG). An important item to consider is service life considerations for the materials used (EHEDG Document 32), as well as their chemical-physical characteristics and materials pairing.

Particularly critical are process contact surfaces, as they may impact product quality. Establishment of specific requirements is thus needed. The guidance focuses its attention on austenitic stainless steels (i.e. CrNiMo steels 1.4404 and 1.4435). The main elements to be assessed are the risk of corrosion, the risk of contamination of the product or process medium and the cleanability of the metallic surface. Topography, morphology and energy level are the main characteristics to be used to describe surfaces, addressing respectively the geometric shape, chemical composition and energy required per unit area to increase the size of the surface. The guidance provides a detailed discussion of all different aspects of surface treatment methods, and the hygienic design of open and closed equipment. Other sections discuss the optimal design of pipework and fittings, connections, welding and seam control. Detailed information is also provided on equipment of electrical engineering, measurement and control technology, as well as the process control technology (PCT) measurement and control functions.

A highly critical area within a pharmaceutical facility are cleanrooms, for which the design of the equipment and the choice of materials is even more stringent. Elements to be considered include stability/statics as concerns dynamic loads, smoothness of the floor, tightness of external façades and of enclosing surfaces of cleanrooms. Smooth nonporous surfaces are required, together with avoidance of molecular contamination, resistance to the intended cleaning or disinfection agents and the cleaning procedure, simple and tight integration of various fittings, efficient and rapid implementation of subsequent functional and technical changes. The ECA guidance document goes deeper into relevant requirements for all elements that are part of the design of a compliant cleanroom.

Documentation and automation

User requirement specifications (URS) are the key document to demonstrate equipment is fit for the intended use, as stated by GMP Annex 15 (2015). The ECA guidance suggests translating the URS in a technical version to be submitted to the potential equipment supplier, so to ensure the design would reflect product and quality-relevant requirements, being thus GMP compliant.

The management of documentation along the design life cycle of a new piece of equipment is also taken into consideration, with the different construction phases identified according to Good engineering practices (GEP): conceptual design, basic design/engineering, and detailed design/engineering.

The extensive use of data to monitor and document pharmaceutical manufacturing process represents another area of great attention. Requirements relevant to the design of validated computerised systems, data protection and data integrity must be kept in mind. ECA’s experts highlight the need to carefully delimitate areas subject to validation and their extention, particularly with reference to automated systems. Differences between qualification and validation of automated systems are also addressed, including equipment that might either be defined as “computerised” or “automated” system. Regulatory reference for validation is GAMP 5, while qualification refers to Annex 15.

HERA reports on stockpiling of antimicrobials

February 24, 2023

access to data, AMR, antibiotic manufacturing capacities, antimicrobial resistance feasibility study on stockpiling, API manufacturing, convertible manufacturing capacity, critical classes of antibiotics, critical intermediates, critical market withdrawal, demand scenarios, ECDC, ema, Emergency Response Coordination Centre, EMVS, ESMP, European Commission, European Health Emergency preparedness and Response Authority, European Medicines Verification System, European Shortages Monitoring Platform, first-line therapy, GDF, generics sustainability, geopolitical shocks, Global Drug Facility, hard-to-make substances, HERA, incentives, Joint Procurement Agreement, lack in transparency, last-line therapy, mandatory reporting, McKinsey Solutions, new antibiotics, opt-out mechanism, physical stockpiling, rescEU system, reserve therapies, short-term mechanism, SNS, stockpiling obligations, stockpiling of antimicrobials, stockpiling systems, Stop TB Partnership, supply chain, supply chain disruptions, supply chain vulnerabilities, surge in demand, trade disruptions, tuberculosis, ultimate reserve line of therapy, US Strategic National Stockpile, virtual stockpiling

By Giuliana Miglierini

The European Health Emergency Preparedness and Response Authority (HERA) has published the two final reports, prepared by McKinsey Solutions for the European Commission, describing respectively the results obtained during the first and second phases of the antimicrobial resistance (AMR) feasibility study on stockpiling.

Antibiotic resistance represents a major threat for human health, as many active substances are losing efficacy towards many bacterial species. The first report (deliverables D1–D5) focuses on the mapping exercise run during the project and aimed to assessing the current situation, identifying vulnerabilities, and reviewing the stockpiling systems currently available in the EU and at the global level.

The second report (deliverables D6-D7) discusses the vulnerabilities identified in the previous phase and the potential tools and solutions to address them, including the assessment of available options for stockpiling of antimicrobials at EU level.

Mapping of the current situation

According to the first report, 32 classes of antibiotics were identified as critical with respect to the need to ensure continued access to patients in order to offer sufficient therapeutic and prophylactic options against systemic bacterial infections.

The analysis proceeded further to identify narrower sets of antibiotics most useful to treat infections due to common pathogens with acquired antibiotic resistance: a first subset of 20 substances was indicated as specially relevant as first- or last-line/reserve therapies against AMR pathogens, and from this a shorter sublist of 13 was identified as last-line/reserve therapies for severe and potentially lethal infections.

The report did not identified any critical market withdrawal of antibiotic substances from the EU market, even though some criticalities may occur in some member states. Alternatives with better efficacy and/or safety profiles are still available on the market for the six substances identified as fully withdrawn.

According to the report, stockpiling at the EU level might not have a direct impact on the mitigation of market-driven trends. Improved monitoring of potentially critical future withdrawals would be needed to enable early detection of shortages and establishment of counteractions.

Innovation in the field of new antibiotics is still largely insufficient, with only six substances currently in phase 3 clinical development. These might prove useful especially as the ultimate reserve line of therapy after exhaustion of the currently available therapeutic options. The report suggests that, upon reaching approval, these innovative substances could be considered for future stockpiling or incentives to facilitate launch in the EU.

The analysis of supply chain vulnerabilities aimed to identify higher priority antibiotics as possible candidates for stockpiling. The report highlights that the analysis was “significantly limited by a lack of outside-in transparency”. Potential single points of failure and/or past disruptions in most supply chains were identified for the 32 critical antimicrobial classes, but the lack of capacity data made the in-depth analysis particularly difficult.

Six representative sets of antibiotic substances were assessed, for five of which less than 25% of API manufacturing occurs in the EU. Similar trends have been also observed for the remaining 26 classes. The supply of critical intermediates (i.e., 6-APA and 7-ACA) appears particularly worrying and may potentially lead to a future shortage of that specific antibiotic/class in the case of a shock. HERA report warns against the possible risks related to potential vulnerability to trade disruptions and unforeseen geopolitical shocks, which may lead to a significant shortage in case of failure of just a single manufacturing site, independent of its location.

The feasibility study also mapped the already existing or planned stockpiling systems, so to use this information to better design the new, EU-level stockpiling system. Four different levels were identified, ranging from the EU’s and member states’ systems to multilateral and/or international NGO stockpiles, stockpiles/inventories in the commercial value chain, and extra-EU national stockpiles.

At the EU and EFTA national level, 13 countries reported a national stockpile that includes antimicrobials, even if greatly differing as for the chosen model. The rescEU system was identified at the EU level as the most relevant mechanism potentially useful to complement and/or integrate with a publicly managed physical stockpile of antibiotics.

The Stop TB Partnership’s Global Drug Facility (GDF) was identified as one of the international models of interest, together with the US Strategic National Stockpile (SNS). The GDF includes more than 2,000 partners and acts as the largest purchaser and supplier of medicines to treat tuberculosis in the public sector globally. The suggestion is for HERA and the European Commission to collaborate with the GDF in case of a TB-related demand spike. The SNS may represent a significant example of how to address many of the criticalities highlighted by the report.

How to better address stockpiling of antibiotics

The second report builds on the above-mentioned observations to go deeper in analysing from different perspectives and targets the possible approaches to the stockpiling of antibiotics. The indication is for HERA to consider using existing initiatives (e.g., rescEU, the EU’s Joint Procurement Agreement and the Emergency Response Coordination Centre) and to work closely with EU member states and other EU agencies (i.e., EMA and the ECDC).

An important warning was also made: stockpiling is just “a short-term mechanism. It does not alter the fundamental market environment. It can only represent one part of any answer to the challenges faced by health agencies including HERA, whether AMR-related or otherwise”.

A sudden and unpredictable surge in demand and an interruption to supply are the two archetypes analysed to better identify how to address stockpiling.

More than 30 potential demand scenarios were considered, leading to the identification of one high priority stockpiling candidate (higher demand for anti-mycobacterial medicines due to a surge of imported tuberculosis cases) and other three important, but not yet prioritised scenarios. These include stockpiling against the accidental or deliberate release of a bacterial pathogen, treating bacterial super-infections due to a viral pandemic, and the potential rapid spread of an AMR pathogen in the current European context.

Stockpiling for supply chain disruptions was also assessed, leading to the conclusion that alternative products are available as substitutes in the great majority of cases. A point of attention is represented by cross-class substitution, that might provoke different side effects for different groups of patients and could represent a potential factor for the promotion of AMR. More complex treatment procedures (e.g., i.m. vs oral administration), higher costs for healthcare systems and organisational issues for providers should also be considered.

Virtual stockpiling to be managed through the new European Shortages Monitoring Platform (ESMP) or the existing European Medicines Verification System (EMVS) would increase transparency of the system. A mandate or incentives to support private sector physical stockpiling was considered as the most feasible option available. Efforts should be made by the EU Commission to better characterise the relationships between the economic sustainability of limited generics productions (e.g. oral formulations for paediatric use of narrow-spectrum genericised penicillins) and the risk of shortages.

Five lines of possible action

The second report identifies five possible lines for future action aimed to strengthen the antibiotic supply chain and improve the stockpiling feasibility. At first instance, it would be important to improve transparency and reporting, so to better enable the availability of targeted preparedness and response measures.

This might include the harmonisation and extension of mandatory reporting of medicine shortages across the EU, the possibility for HERA to access regulatory data from agencies and information from marketing authorisation holders on supply chain setup and inventories in the case of a healthcare emergency situation, the implementation of an opt-out mechanism from stockpiling obligations at final product level, and the introduction of a general extension of reporting requirements for the supply chain of antibiotic products sold in the EU.

The second line of possible action addresses how to lower wastage in existing private and public inventories and stockpiles. Available options include regulatory measures and limited financial support for drug stability studies or for packaging options able to maintain product quality over longer periods of time.

Facilitation and regulatory support for mutual recognition of national level approvals for antibiotics might help to improve the flexibility of existing inventories and stockpiles, so as to better mitigate the shortages occurring in some member states.

Other two complementary approaches have been identified as potentially useful to improve the supply chain resilience of the EU antibiotics market. On one hand, diversified and in-market antibiotic manufacturing capacities and capabilities could be supported by targeted incentives and investments. On the other, the maintenance of reserve/convertible manufacturing capacity for hard-to-make substances might be also supported, so to better face the need to rapidly compensate the increased requests from patients should disruptions occur.

Some perspectives on green pharmaceuticals

January 20, 2023

ABPI, API release in the environment, API-related emission, Bengt Mattson, biocatalysts, carbon footprint, CHEM21, CHEM21 online learning platform, circular economy, Common regulatory standards, EIPG webinar, Environment, environmental reporting standards, environmental risk assessment, Environmental Science & Technology Letters, environmental sustainability, expected environmental impact, flucytosine, GAL, Green Aspirational Level, green deal, Green Drug Design, green pharmaceuticals, green-by-design, GREENER approach, Health, investment in decarbonisation, IQ Consortium, lack of reward for sustainability, LCA, LIF, life cycle analysis, OHE, packaging, PGEU, Pharmaceuticals in the environment, PiE, PREMIER project, renewable raw materials, revision of the pharmaceutical legislation, standardised metrics, Supplier Roadmap, supply chain. collection schemes for expired medicines, sustainable procurement processes, urban waste water treatment, waste water treatment, waste-to-product ratio, zero emission

by Giuliana Miglierini

The central role the green agenda plays within the EU Commission’s transformative policies impacts also on the development and availability of pharmaceutical products characterised by a improved sustainability. The concept of “Pharmaceuticals in the environment” (PiE) is entering the new legislative framework; the undergoing revision of the pharmaceutical legislation, for example, may include among other the request of environmental risk assessment and urban wastewater treatment. But also, the goal of a circular economy at net zero emission and the revision of the chemical legislation.

As explained by Dr Bengt Mattson, Policy Manager at the Swedish research-based pharmaceutical industry association Läkemedelsindustriföreningen (Lif) during a recent EIPG’s webinar, the EU Commission Action plan on environment for years 2021-2023 includes twenty legislative and non-legislative files impacting also the pharma sector.

The theme of the so-called “green pharmaceuticals” is also part of the broader approach to environmental sustainability of the chemical industry. The topic is not new, for example the EU and IMI-funded CHEM21 project in years 2012-2017 focused on the development of new manufacturing processes for the pharmaceutical industry to reduce the use of expensive and toxic materials. Another target of the project included the development of environmentally friendly methods useful to save time and costs, while reducing waste.

Activities focused on the antimicrobial drug flucytosine, with the final goal to use flow chemistry and biocatalyst techniques to make it more easily available also in lower income countries to treat a fungal form of meningitis in HIV/AIDS patients. The new, cleaner and safer method developed under the project allowed to reduce the need for expensive toxic chemicals and other raw materials, with a corresponding decrease both in costs and wastes. As a side activity, the CHEM21 project also explored more efficient screening methods to find new enzymes potentially useful as biocatalysts in industrial chemical reactions.

A Green-by-design future for pharmaceutical processes

At the EIPG’s webinar, Dr Mattson discussed from many different perspectives how R&D initiatives may influence green manufacturing. The attention moved from packaging and energy in the ’90-ies to APIs released in the environment at the beginning of the new millennium. The ’20-ies shows a greater attention to API-related emission and to aspects linked to the efficient use of resources and the resulting carbon footprint. From this point of view, it may result not easy to correctly estimate the expected environmental impact of a pharmaceutical product. Biological substances, for example, may be more easily biodegradable than synthetic small molecules, but they may also require more energy to ensure the correct storage conditions.

The development of green processes represents a great challenge for chemists and pharmacists working in the pharmaceutical industry. A possible approach to Green Drug Design has been explored, for example, by another IMI project, Premier. Results have been recently published in the Environmental Science & Technology Letters.

The “Greneer” approach includes among others, criteria aimed to achieve avoidance of non-target effects and of use of persistent, bioaccumulative, and toxic (PBT) substances, and exposure reduction. The final goal would be the development of “green-by-design” active pharmaceutical ingredients.

Green pharmaceutical processes should also prefer more eco-friendly, renewable raw materials, with a particular attention to the choice of solvents and reagents. Waste water treatment to eliminate residues of pharmaceuticals is a typical example of downstream measures put in place at the industrial level to reduce the environmental impact of manufacturing activities. As noted during the webinar, the main source of this type of pollutants remains excretion by patients, followed by inappropriate disposal.

The pharmaceutical supply chain, and in particular community pharmacists represented by PGEU, is also active to inform patients, develop national and regional collection schemes for expired and unused medicines, and to make available more sustainable packing materials and transports.

A call to action from the UK

In the UK, the request emerging from a report by the Office of Health Economics (OHE), commissioned by the Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry (ABPI) is for the government and other stakeholders to take immediate action “to secure the era of green pharmaceuticals”.

The report highlights the challenges for the pharmaceutical industry in order to reach the ambitious target of net zero carbon. Among these is the difficulty to quickly change processes to increase sustainability while maintaining product safety, the need to collaborate at all levels along the complex global pharmaceutical supply chain, the high waste-to-product ratio on the supply side of the medicines market, the new environmental impact profile of innovative drug products compared to established small molecule technologies, and the lack of reward for sustainability.

The report also suggests high-priority activities, including investment in decarbonisation and a long-term energy strategy for transition away from fossil fuels. Common regulatory standards and environmental reporting standards should be agreed upon by regulators of different geographic areas, including the EU and US. Financial support for the adoption of greener technologies by both the industry and the NHS is also suggested. Improvements to the NHS’s supply chain may come by the Supplier Roadmap and more sustainable procurement processes and health technology assessment methods. Public-private partnerships may represent the tool to launch proof of concept pilots for sustainability schemes or co-invest on key infrastructure projects.

Standardised metrics to be used to publicly disclose emissions and progress against targets are suggested as a useful tool for the industry, together with the life cycle analysis (LCA) of products, and the development of innovative solutions for waste management and efficiency improvement.

Other insights on green pharmaceuticals

Many other things may be said on green pharmaceuticals, but we are running out of space. We then highlight some useful links readers may refer to deepen the topic.

An outcome of the CHEM21 project is represented by the CHEM21 online learning platform, managed by the ACS Green Chemistry Institute. The platform offers many free educational and training materials in the field of the sustainable synthesis of pharmaceuticals.

The Green Chemistry Working Group of the International Consortium for Innovation and Quality in Pharmaceutical Development (IQ) has elaborated a Green Aspirational Level (GAL) metrics to assess the green efficiency for a given API’s manufacturing process, based on the complexity of its ideal synthesis route.

The industrial associations also committed to take action in the field of Environment, Health, Safety and Sustainability (EHS&S). The three main European groups representing, respectively, the research-based industry (EFPIA), the auto-cure (AESGP) and the generic and biosimilar sectors (Medicines for Europe) have developed the Eco-Pharmaco-Stewardship (EPS) framework. The initiative takes into consideration the entire life-cycle of a medicinal product, including roles and responsibilities of all parties involved.

The Medicine Maker’s editor Stephanie Sutton interviewed some industrial experts on different aspects of sustainability (here the link to the article). Some other comments from industrial representatives have been reported by Cynthia A. Challener in an article published on PharmTech.com

European Council’s conclusions on the European Innovation Agenda and research infrastructures

January 6, 2023

accreditation, best practices, breakthrough innovation, Conclusions on Research Infrastructures, Conclusions on the European Innovation Agenda, coordination of R&I policies, Digital transition, diversification of supplies, ERA Policy Agenda 2022– 2024, ERIC, ESFRI, EU’s competitiveness, European Charter for Access to Research Infrastructures, European Commission, European Council, European Innovation Council Fund, European Open Science Cloud, European Research Area, European Research Infrastructure Consortium, European RI ecosystem, FAIR principles, fit-for-purpose, flexibility, forward-looking, Green transitions, higher education, Horizon Europe, incremental innovation, industrial policy, innovation, innovation-friendly, integrated research infrastructures, long-term investments, open approach to international R&I cooperation, open strategic autonomy, Pact for Research and Innovation, policy reforms, private R&I investments, quality certified scientific data, recommendations, regional development, regulatory adaptation and experimentation, regulatory framework. deep-tech innovation, research-driven innovation, sectorial policies, social sciences and humanities, standardisation, strategic dependencies on external suppliers, strategic use of intellectual assets, Technology Infrastructures, Vladimír Balaš

by Giuliana Miglierini

The European socio-economic framework is undergoing a profound transformative moment, as a result of the new vision impressed by the von der Leyen Commission, with its goals in the field of the Digital and Green transitions. The subsequent crisis caused by the Covid pandemic and the following war at the boundaries of the European Union deeply impacted the already fragile economy, asking for new measures to sustain its competitiveness and ability to innovate.

A major goal of the Commission’s Agenda is to reposition the EU as a global leader in innovation. The European Council endorsed this vision at the beginning of December 2022, by adopting the Conclusions on the New European Innovation Agenda.

“The recent crises have shown the need for the EU to support an open strategic autonomy in order to curb the dependencies and vulnerabilities that affect our industry. We have to strengthen the EU’s own capacity in strategic areas. This will not be possible without ambitious investments in innovation”, said Vladimír Balaš, Czech Minister for Education, Youth and Sport, commenting the document.

The European Council also adopted its new Conclusions on research infrastructures (RIs), which complement and complete the framework to support innovation and set the basis for the full development of the European Research Area (ERA).

According to the European Commission, almost two thirds of the EU’s growth is driven by innovation. Despite this, the EU still positions behind other countries as for Gross domestic product expenditure on R&D activities (2.18%, vs 4.52% of South Korea, 3.28% of Japan and 2.82% of the US. Only China slightly follows at 2.14%). The same trend applies also to business enterprise investments in R&D (EU 1.45%, vs 3.63% of South Korea, 2.6% Japan, 2.05% of the US, and 1.66% of China).

The new Innovation Agenda

The Conclusions on the New European Innovation Agenda are the result of a work started in November 2021, when the Council’s Recommendation on a Pact for Research and Innovation (R&I) in Europe highlighted the importance of synergies with sectorial policies and industrial policy, as well as the coordination of R&I policies and programmes to support the development of breakthrough and incremental innovations across the Union. The New European Innovation Agenda was announced by the Commission in July 2022 and is intended to fully exploit the potential of deep tech innovations. In September 2022, the Czech Presidency of the Council started the drafting of the conclusions, and the final text adopted by the Competitiveness Council (Research) at its meeting of 2 December 2022.

All types of innovation play a critical role in driving EU’s competitiveness, states the document, with a particular emphasis on research-driven innovation, deemed able of shaping and creating new markets. Incremental and breakthrough innovation are both essential to maximise the societal and economic value of the resulting outcomes. Investing in higher education and R&I is thus essential to achieve these goals, and to position the EU as a global R&I leader. Social sciences and humanities should also be part of the comprehensive approach to innovation described by the Conclusions.

The diversification of supplies and the mitigation measures to tackle strategic dependencies on external suppliers are critical issues to be faced to compete in the complex global geopolitical scenario. An open approach to international R&I cooperation is still the goal of the European institutions, requiring shared fundamental values and principles with other countries and a balanced and reciprocal approach.

At the regulatory level, flexibility, fit-for-purpose, forward-looking and innovation-friendly remain the preferred keywords to characterise the new framework. The development of breakthrough, deep-tech and disruptive innovations should be supported by standardisation and accreditation, and regulatory adaptation and experimentation.

The Council also supports the role of private R&I investments and strategic use of intellectual assets as a fundamental part of the undergoing transition, as well as further policy reforms at Union, national and regional levels to better encourage the full development and implementation of new technologies, including testing and demonstration facilities.

The European Innovation Council (EIC) Fund has been confirmed as the tool to support investments in innovation. Among others, the Conclusions ask the Commission to implement the EIC’s Scale Up 100 action and to facilitate access to capital for innovative start-ups and SMEs through the InvestEU Programme.

Conclusions on Research Infrastructures

The second document approved in December 2022 updates the vision of the European RI ecosystem, with a particular focus on the system of integrated research infrastructures. Access to RIs is deemed fundamental to support innovation by private, large and medium-small companies. It can take different forms, i.e. proprietary access to RIs, contractual research, joint R&I, training and industrial, supply of top-class products and services to RIs. Research infrastructures are also important to sustain regional development and support the availability of a wide range of skills and relating jobs.

A central part of document is represented by the call to proceed with the implementation of the ERA Policy Agenda for the period 2022–2024 and, in particular, ERA Action 8 (“Strengthen sustainability, accessibility and resilience of RIs in the ERA”). To this instance, a major activity should aim to involve RIs in producing, collecting, processing, storing and providing quality certified scientific data in accordance with the FAIR (Findable, Accessible, Interoperable and Reusable) principles. This action is considered essential to facilitate the sharing and use of data across a broad range of disciplines as well as at the international level.

To improve the RIs’ framework, the invitation of the Council is for the European Strategy Forum on Research Infrastructures (ESFRI) to run a comparative study aimed to identify best practices and elaborate recommendations to national and regional RI stakeholders by the end of 2023. A common approach for the staff of the RIs, especially in the case of a European Research Infrastructure Consortium (ERIC), is also envisaged.

Research infrastructures can’t operate without the support of Technology Infrastructures (TIs); a mapping exercises of the last ones is considered essential in order to proceed with the implementation of the TI concept within the ERA Policy Agenda. Members states and the Commission should also work to better identify the role of RIs in the implementation of Horizon Europe (i.e. European Partnerships and Missions, industrial technology roadmaps, etc.). RIs may also contribute to designing new services based on their different missions and should be supported by long-term investments by member states with the support of the Commission. To this instance, the analysis of possible types of financial support throughout RIs’ life cycle, with identification of good practices and synergies of various funding resources, should be accomplished by ESFRI.

The Council also invited the Commission to present an initiative on a revised European Charter for Access to Research Infrastructures by the end of 2023. A better coordination between ESFRI and the European Open Science Cloud (EOSC) Steering Board would also be needed.

What happens after IP loss of protection

November 11, 2022

biological molecule, biosimilar, Central and Eastern Europe countries, competition, competitors, costs reduction, data exclusivity, data protection, entry on the market, EU4 markets, generics, intellectual property protection, IP rights, IQVIA, length of protection, loss of exclusivity, lost of protection, market access, market exclusivity, open competition, originator, orphan drug exclusivity, paediatric drug exclusivity, patent protection, period of exclusivity, Pharmaceuticals, prices of medicines, RDP, Regulatory, return on investment, small molecules, SPC, Supplementary Protection Certificate, supply chain sustainability, therapeutic areas, volumes growth

by Giuliana Miglierini

What does it happen under a competitiveness perspective once intellectual property (IP) protection for medicinal products expired? And what is the impact of the new entries on generics and biosimilars already in the market?

The role of competitor entry on the market has been analysed in a report by IQVIA.

The document focuses on loss of protection (LOP), thus including in the analysis all products that are free from any form of IP rights (patent protection, SPCs, RDP, market exclusivity/loss of exclusivity, data exclusivity, orphan/paediatric drug exclusivity). According to the report, there are many elements to be considered while assessing the impact of IP rights, among which are regulatory issues, prices policies, competitiveness landscapes. Finally, all the previously mentioned issues are today facing a higher pressure due to the incumbent global situation, characterised a generalised economic crisis especially in Europe. One of the main goals of the EU Commission is to increase the attractiveness of the internal market as a key innovative region for investment in the pharmaceutical sector.

The main trends of the past six years

The IQVIA’s report takes into consideration the group of medicines that have lost protection across the past six years (2016–2021), for a total of 118 molecules; it also analysed the impact of the alignment of the regulatory data protection (RDP) rules in Europe occurred in late 2005, as well as the entry of new countries in the EU occurred in 2004 (Czech Republic, Estonia, Cyprus, Latvia, Lithuania, Hungary, Malta, Poland, Slovakia and Slovenia). EU’s enlargement also included Romania (2007), Bulgaria (2007), and Croatia (2013). Many of the products considered in the analysis were innovative medicines, representing approx. 13% of the total European pharmaceutical expenditure at their peak.

According to IQVIA’s data, the total European pharmaceutical market at list prices valued € 1 trillion in 2016-2021. Over the same period, all protected products counted for 37% of total expenditure on pharmaceuticals (€ 377 billion). Medicinal products that lost protection represented roughly 10% of the total EU market value (€103 billion).

Forms of IP protection

Just more than a half (51%) of products that lost protection in years 2016-2021 were subject to a Supplementary Protection Certificate (SPC), while the RDP mainly refers to older cardiovascular, or combination medicines. Eleven years is the current average length of protection in Europe (-4.2 years; it was 15.2 years for authorisations granted in 1999-2005); the decrease can be attributed to the entry into force of the European centralised system, that diminished the impact of delays to LOP. Market exclusivity also depends on the specific form of IP protection chosen, as it may vary the calculation from different starting dates for IP filing.

IQVIA’s data show that SPC represents 32% of the final form of protection; this sums to 19% of SPC followed by paediatric extension. SPC provides a maximum of 15 years of protection, with an average of 14.4 years. Medicines under regulatory data protection are 31% of total (8 years data exclusivity + 2 years market exclusivity +1 year for a significant new indication), the patented ones 11%. Smaller fractions are covered by orphan drug exclusivity (5%) or orphan drug extension followed by paediatric extension (2%). Considering sales values, the preferred constraining form of protection for small molecules is SPC (93%), followed by RDP (83%); SPC plus paediatric extension occurs in 50% of cases for biologics. Small molecules are also often subject (80%) to patent plus other forms of exclusivity (orphan/paediatric extension). According to IQVIA, the undergoing discussion on the review of the European IP legislation may lead to an alignment of the RDP duration to the US standard (5 years for small molecules, 12 years for biologics).

The impact of the different legislation governing patent litigation in the EU vs the US should also be taken into consideration.

Access and competition

Access of new generic and biosimilar medicines in the European market is a long debated issue, as historically it often proved difficult to determine the precise date of patent expiry and to find an alignment between different countries on this fundamental issue.

According to IQVIA’s report, in the years 2016-2021 the duration of access to major EU markets was 36 days. Competition for small molecules has reduced the cost by approx. 41%, with a volume growth of ~27%; the overall savings for the payer was -8% CAGR for the years 2016-2021. Biologics also increased their volumes year-on-year (23%). Less evident are savings for payers (8% increase in 2016-2021), but many biologics benefit of confidential discounts for hospital supplies.

Competition is very peculiar to the European market landscape, with 92% of molecules having competitors recorded by sales value. A very small niche (2%) of small, low value products proved to be less attractive; the remaining 6% refers to products under development. The biosimilar sector is particularly challenging, as only the largest molecules are attractive from the competition point of view; about 30% of products without a competitor in development are biologics.

Central and Eastern Europe countries are still the preferred ones for early access to competitors, compared to the EU4 markets (Germany, France, Italy, Spain), due to dates for LOP that are in many cases still subject to some variation. On the contrary, EU4 markets account for 89% of sales of available molecules; many countries have no recorded sales for 25% of the available originator molecules.

Data by IQVIA indicates that, at a macro-level, the system has reduced the cost of medicines open to competition by 28%, while the volume of treatment increased 27%. Despite this encouraging trend, treatment paradigms shifting were also observed before LOP.

As for therapeutic areas, RDP protected medicines that underwent LOP were mainly referring to anti-hypertensive (73%) and combination products (61%). The higher proportion of SPC protected products was found in systemic anti-fungals (60%), oncology medicines and HIV/anti-virals (45% each). Immunology and lipid regulators are often protected using SPC plus paediatric extension (60% and 50%, respectively)

The importance of intellectual property rights

Estimates of investments in pharmaceutical R&D are approx. €39 billion/year, according to the report. Return on investment relies heavily on IP rights, a theme that is central also to the ongoing review of the EU’s pharmaceutical and IP legislations. Many new treatments are on their way towards approval, especially in the field of advanced therapies; according to IQVIA, more than 60% are first-in-class therapeutics.

Two core concepts support the current European framework for intellectual property rights: a period of exclusivity applying to new compounds (patent protection + SPC), followed by open competition once all IP expired. At this stage, competitors can access open data and manufacturing formulations. Prices are often regulated at the national level to incentivise competition and to positively impact on treatment opportunities available to patients.

The current fragility of supply chains for pharmaceutical productions may pose many challenges to originator companies which remain the sole provider of a medicine after loss of protection. A risk highlighted by IQVIA’s report is a too pronounced decrease of prices to support competition, and thus the sustainability of the market.

Access to innovative medicines is another challenge identified, referring to countries where the originator did not launch its product, and neither the competitors did. Furthermore, competitor entry often refers to low-value medicines. This despite future loss of protection for the years 2026-2030 should refer mainly (55%) to biologic molecules, compared to 43% for the period 2021-2025.

How to approach drug substance supply in new product introduction (NPI) processes

October 7, 2022

active pharmaceutical ingredients, active substance, adherence to schedule, API, best practices, biopharmaceuticals, BioPhorum, business review, capacity modelling, clinical milestones, collaborative industrial approach, COPQ, demand forecasts, demand sensitivities, feedback on performance, gap analysis, governance, indication, investigational medicinal products, manufacture review, master data, master service, material supply agreement, materials evaluation, materials risk analysis, metrics, new product introduction, NPI, NPI supply chain, operational performance, OTIF, ownership. RACI matrix, pharmaceutical production, Product Lifecycle Demand and Supply Strategy, product lifecycle materials requirements, qualification process, raw materials, request for information, RFI, roles and responsibilities, specifications, standard industrial master data set, supplier, supplier qualification, supplier selection, supply, supply agreements, supply forecasts

by Giuliana Miglierini

A key issue to be faced during pharmaceutical development refers to the supply of the active pharmaceutical ingredients and other raw materials to be used for the manufacturing of the first batches of investigational medicinal products, and then up to commercial production once approved.

Changes of specifications can frequently occur during experimentation, thus leading to the need to modify supply requirements for clinical programs. This is more true when dealing with biopharmaceutical investigational products, for which the traditional models for forecasting and demand processes may prove unfitted. The result is a lower robustness and predictability at early stages of the new product introduction (NPI) manufacturing processes. The complexity of the NPI supply chain is also impacting on manufacturing operations, with possible delays in the clinical program and launch schedule.

These issues have been addressed in the document “Guidelines for materials introduction supporting drug substance delivery”, published by the B2B organisation BioPhorum. A summary of its contents has been published in Bioprocess Online.

A good internal communication is fundamental

The ability to produce robust supply forecasts for new product introduction bases on a detailed knowledge of the planning of different activities to be run for a timely launch. Role and responsibilities have to be clear, as well as the information to be collected and timely shared between the manufacturing and commercial departments of biopharmaceutical companies.

The availability of such information is crucial to reduce the variability intrinsic in the NPI process for a biopharmaceutical product, which costs much more compared to a traditional smallmolecule based one. Reducing variability also impacts on the ability to better compete in the often highly dynamic market for biosimilars, or to address the launch of a new biotherapeutic under the correct perspective. Issues may be encountered also with respect to the regulatory approval processes, which may require different time lengths in different geographic areas or countries. This adds another uncertainty factor to estimates of the quantities of product to be manufactured.

Upon this considerations, the BioPhorum document identifies four key issues to be addressed to provide for a timely NPI process, including capacity and lead-time restrictions or oversupply, late change evaluation and implementation, governance issues and network complexity and in-licensed (or non-platform) products.

The availability of a good NPI process may avoid to incur many problems once operations are in place; all the needed master data information to support the use of raw materials should also be present and correct. BioPhorum’s suggestion is to include NPI processes in the creation of master service and supply agreements for the supply of raw materials, as they help to reach clarity on what a supplier can deliver and what it cannot.

A four steps methodology and roadmap

The document by the BioPhorum describes the results of a project aimed to develop a materialsbased methodology and roadmap to support improved NPI processes, on the basis of a collaborative industry approach to identify and implement best practices.

The result is a four steps process referring to the different activities needed to set up materials introduction and supply. The proposed different steps include the establishment of product lifecycle materials requirements, materials evaluation, supplier selection and qualification, and a manufacture and business review. Each of them should be supported by specific tools and checklists to be developed internally by the company. The governance of the process should involve senior supplier/manufacturer nominees to formally approve the package of deliverables at each stage gate.

Establishing product lifecycle material requirements

For each of the four steps of the NPI process, the BioPhorum document offers detailed lists of information to be collected and of expected outcomes.

Stage gate 1 addresses the establishment of product lifecycle material requirements, usually corresponding to the activation of first time in human studies (FTIH). Data to be collected include specifications of raw materials (e.g. order of magnitude, grade, supply options, environmental-health-safety (EHS) or geographic issues, etc.) as well as master data such as recipe information, plant diagram, list of equipment and process information. At the clinical level, information on the demand sensitivities on indication and clinical milestones and decision points should support the first estimates of the supply and demand plan, to be then expanded to agree on lifecycle forecasts.

The output may take the form of a ‘Product Lifecycle Demand and Supply Strategy’, a document discussing the long-term supply, demand and manufacturing of the product. Starting from the initial planning, the strategy should evolve through the creation of a data store specific for biopharmaceuticals, and the execution of gap analysis for in-licensed products. The strategy should also include a rough capacity modelling and description of ownership and the definition of a RACI matrix (responsible, accountable, consult, inform) to clarify roles and responsibilities with respect to each task, deliverable, or action. Information should be also available on high level technology requirements (both at the internal and external level). Strategic suppliers should be involved in early activities and materials risk analysis should be initiated.

Materials evaluation

Stage gate 2 refers to the information to be gathered from suppliers on the basis of requests for information (RFI) on materials. This should include all the different aspects relevant to the selection of the supplier, including capacity and costs, contacts, technical specifications and audit history, availability of samples, EHS aspects and business systems (e.g. availability of an appropriate ERP system).

This information should facilitate the identification of supplier that might be able to support the predicted or proposed growth of the product over its lifecycle. Stage gate 2 is also part of the risk management process to be run to validate the activation of full production.

Outputs include the sharing of forecasts and sensitivities with suppliers as needed, the establishment of a standard industrial master data set for biopharmaceuticals, as well as of business acceptance criteria.

Supplier selection and qualification

Stage gate 3 addresses the qualification process to finally select the most suitable suppliers and close the corresponding material supply agreements. The RFI and other information gathered in the previous step represent the basis of this exercise, aimed to develop a supply chain resilience strategic approach. The signature of the initial contracts is the final mark of formal selection, and should be supported by an agreement with the supplier on forecast and schedule for the supply, as well as of the business acceptance criteria.

Manufacture and business review

Stage gate 4 refers to the assessment of the operational performance of the supply chain for raw materials, a key activity in order to ensure continuity of supply and to promptly intercept any emerging issue on the basis of trends analysis.

Tools needed to this instance include the definition of appropriate metrics to monitor supplies (e.g. adherence to schedule, “On time in full”-OTIF, “Cost of poor quality”-COPQ). Information on the innovation potential of the supplier and the provision of a feedback on its performance is also deemed important. Any issue should be timely discussed between the supplier and the biopharmaceutical company, and confirmation of the production schedule agreed upon.

ACT EU’s Workplan 2022-2026

September 16, 2022

Accelerating Clinical Trials in the EU, ACT EU, basket trials, change management startegy, clinical research, clinical trial methodology, clinical trial safety monitoring, clinical trials, Clinical Trials Regulation, communication campaigns, communication strategy, complex clinical trials, CTR, data analytics, data sources, deliverables, ema, EMRN, EU clinical trials dashboard, European Commission, European Medicines Regulatory Network, European Pharmaceutical Strategy for Europe, expert groups, flexibility, GCP, Good Clinical Practice, governance, HMA, ICH E6(R2) guideline, innovative clinical trial designs, issues for sponsors, KPIs, large multinational clinical trials, mapping of existing initiatives, master protocols, multi- stakeholders platform, patient recruitment, pilot phases, RACI, regulatory network responsibility assignment matrix, scientific advice, strategy, study design, timeline, training, umbrella trials, Workplan 2022-2026

by Giuliana Miglierini

The implementation phase of the Accelerating Clinical Trials in the EU (ACT EU) initiative, launched in January 2022 by the European Commission, started with the publication of the2022-2026 Workplan jointly drafted by the Commission, the European Medicines Agency (EMA) and the Heads of Medicines Agencies (HMA).

The final target is to renew how clinical trials are designed and managed, so to improve the attractiveness of Europe for clinical research and the integration of results in the current practice of the European health system.

The 2022-2026 Workplan details the actions and deliverables planned according to the ten priorities identified by ACT EU. The drafting of the document took as primary reference also the recommendations of the European Medicines Regulatory Network (EMRN) strategy to 2025 and the European Commission’s Pharmaceutical Strategy for Europe.

Steps towards the full implementation of the CTR

The first priority of action should see the completion by the end of 2022 of the mapping of already existing initiatives within the EMRN and ethics infrastructure. This exercise represents a fundamental step to achieve a detailed picture of the current clinical trials regulatory landscape, characterised by the presence of various expert groups working in different areas.

The results of the mapping will form the basis to plan and implement a new strategy for the governance of the entire framework governing clinical trials, including the clarification of roles and responsibilities to the Network and its stakeholders. The expected outcome is the rationalisation and better coordination of the work done by different expert groups and working parties, as reflected by a new regulatory network responsibility assignment (RACI) matrix. The analysis and setting up of the new framework should start from the core governance bodies (Clinical Trials Coordination and Advisory Group (CTAG), Clinical Trials Coordination Group (CTCG), Commission Expert Group on Clinical Trials (CTEG) and Good Clinical Practice Inspectors Working Group (GCP IWG)), to then extend to other parts of the Network further.

The full implementation of the Clinical Trials regulation (Reg. (EU) 536/2014) by mean of the launch of monthly KPIs tracking of the planned activities is another key action. A survey to identify issues for sponsors and the consequent implementation of a process to prioritise and solve them are planned for the second half of 2022. The beginning of 2023 should see the launch of a scheme to better support large multinational clinical trials, particularly those run in the academic setting. One year later, at the beginning of 2024, a one-stop shop to support academic sponsors should also be launched.

An important action for the success of ACT EU should see the creation of a multi-stakeholder platform (MSP) to enable the interaction and regular dialogue of the many different stakeholders working in the field of clinical trials under different perspectives, both at the European and member state level. The platform should be launched by Q2 2023, with the first events run under its umbrella planned for Q3 and is expected to help in the identification of key advances in clinical trial methods, technology, and science.

Methodological updates in clinical trials

Another key step in the renewal of the European framework for clinical trials is linked to the updating of the ICH E6(R2) guideline on “Good Clinical Practice” (GCP). A targeted multi-stakeholder workshop on this theme is planned for Q1 2023, while the resulting changes should be implemented in EU guidance documents by Q3 2023. New GCPs should take into better consideration the emerging designs for clinical trials and the availability of new sources for data and are expected to “provide flexibility when appropriate to facilitate the use of technological innovations in clinical trials”. This action also includes the development of a communication and change management strategy to support the transition to the revised GCP guideline, and the updating of other relevant EU guidelines impacted by the change.

The opportunity to introduce innovative clinical trial designs and methodologies shall be addressed starting from decentralised clinical trials (DCT), with the publication of a DCT recommendation paper by the end of 2022. A workshop on complex clinical trials should be also organized to discuss issues linked to study design, such us umbrella trials and basket trials or master protocols. New technologies may support innovative approaches to the recruitment of eligible study participants and new ways to capture data during clinical trials. The publication of key methodologies guidance is an expected deliverable, together with a improved link between innovation and scientific advice.

A new EU clinical trials data analytics strategy is expected to be published by the end of 2022, while the first half of next year should see the development of a publicly accessible EU clinical trials dashboard and a workshop to identify topics of common interest for researchers, policy makers, and funders. These activities are targeted to fully exploit the opportunities offered by data analytics, so to identify complex trends from the large base of data about clinical trials collected by the EMRN. The existence of multiple data sources is a main barrier currently affecting the possibility to access, process and interpret these data.

Another priority is to plan and launch a targeted communication campaign to engage all enablers of clinical trials, including data protection experts, academia, SMEs, funders, Health Technology Assessment (HTA) bodies and healthcare professionals. Up to 2024, this action will also support sponsors in remembering the importance of training linked to the application of the CTR and the mandatory use of the Clinical Trials Information System (CTIS). All other communication needs across all priority actions will also be handled under this action.

Scientific advice, safety monitoring and harmonised training

The current framework sees the involvement of different actors who interact with sponsors at different stages of product development to provide them with scientific advice. A simplification of the overall process should be pursued by grouping of key actors in clinical trials scientific advice in the EU, “with the aim of critically analysing the existing landscape in line with stakeholder needs”. The Workplan indicates several pilot phases should be run to identify the better way to address this topic, which should benefit especially academic or SMEs sponsors that may have less experience of regulatory processes. Planned activities include a enhanced intra-network information exchange, the running of a survey among stakeholders and the operation of a first pilot phase by Q4 2024, to then optimise and expand the advice process upon results.

The establishment of clinical trial safety monitoring is another central theme of action, that should see member states involved in a coordinated work-sharing assessment. Key activities should include the identification of safe CT KPIs by the end of 2022 and a review of IT functionalities for safety, and it will be run in strict connection with the EU4Health Joint Action Safety Assessment Cooperation and Facilitated Conduct of Clinical Trials (SAFE CT). Training of safety assessors and the development of a harmonised curriculum thereof shall be also considered, as well as the alignment of safety procedures for emerging safety issues potentially impacting clinical trials.

The development of a training curriculum informed by regulatory experience should support the creation of a renewed educational ‘ecosystem’ characterised by bidirectional exchanges to enable training on clinical trials. This action is target mainly to better engage universities and SMEs, and it should include also training provided by actors other than the regulatory network.

EMA’s Industry stakeholders group (ISG)

July 15, 2022

Coordination Committee, critical medical devices, ECDC, ema, Emergency Task Force, ESMP, European Commission, European Shortages Monitoring Platform, Executive Steering Group on Shortages of Medical Devices, expert panels on medical devices, extended mandate, HERA, human medicines, i-SPOC, industrial organisations, Industry stakeholders group, investigational products, IRIS platform, ISG, lists of medicines under assessment, manufacturers, MDSSG, Medicines Shortages Steering Group, MSSG, notified bodies, observers, paediatric plans, preparedness, public health emergency, recommendations, rolling review, scientific advice, Scientific Committees, Screening panel, Secretariat, shortages of medical devices, shortages of medicines, sponsors, streamlined procedure, systematic assessment, thematic expert panels, WHO, working parties

by Giuliana Miglierini

The Industrial Stakeholder Group (ISG) is a new initiative recently launched by the European Medicines Agency (EMA) in order to favour the dialogue with the industrial stakeholders. The first meeting of the ISG, the 21 June 2022, focused on the mandate of the Group and on the three priority topics to be addressed during the pilot phase: the Emergency Task Force (ETF), the issue of shortages of medicines and medical devices and the medical device expert panels.

The initiative is part of the activities planned by EMA for the implementation of its extended mandated, as for Regulation (EU) 2022/123.

The mandate of the ISG

The main scope of the ISG is to provide a dedicate forum to capture the industrial point of view and proactively inform on open issues during the implementation of EMA’s extended mandate. The ISG will focus on human medicines and will complement other existing tools, such as industry platform meetings, bilateral meetings, topic or project related meetings. The outcomes obtained from the pilot phase will form the basis of an analysis to evaluate if to extend the scope to other initiatives.

The Chair of the ISG is nominated by the Agency’s Executive Director; the group is composed by one member and one alternate from selected EU industry organisations relevant to the subject of discussion, on the basis of a call for expression of interest. Additional representatives of selected organisations and observers may also participate to specific meetings, according to the topics on the agenda. Observers include the European Commission, EMA’s committees (e.g. CHMP, ETF, CMDh, SPOC WP, SMMG), the EU Network, Notified bodies; ad-hoc observers may be also invited from member states and stakeholder groups.

Appointed members will be responsible to liaise with the respective industrial rganisations, so to contribute the discussion with their point of view and to keep them updated on the outcomes of the ISG meetings. The current schedule includes four quarterly meetings per year; the next two are fixed for the 26 September and 22 November 2022. The summary report of each meeting will be available in EMA’s website.

The Emergency Task Force

The new Emergency Task Force (ETF) builds upon the experience gathered during the pandemic and acts within EMA to advise and support on medicines for public health emergencies and preparedness.

The ETF is in charge of coordinating all efforts following the declaration of a public health emergency by health authorities, in strict coordination with all other relevant bodies including the European Health Emergency preparedness and Response Authority (DG HERA), the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC), the WHO and the European Commission.

The new ETF started operating on the new mandate on 22 April. Its composition is based on expertise, and it includes representatives of EMA’s Scientific Committees and Working Parties as well as selected patients and healthcare professionals and clinical trials experts from various member states.

There are three distinct area of activities for the Task Force. Scientific advice and support to clinical trials for the development of medicines to be used during the emergency will be directly managed and assessed by the ETF, free of charge and flowing a fast-track procedure. The new streamlined procedure should lead to the outcome in 20 days; deceleration criteria are also considered, i.e. premature evidence to address the medical need, high workload or lack of urgency. Expected benefits include the reduction of the use of medicines with insufficient evidence of efficacy and the increase of safe and harmonised use across the EU of new products from the pipelines ahead of authorisation. Activities of the ETF will cover all stages of development, from pre-authorisation (e.g. rolling applications or paediatric plans) to post-authorisation (e.g. major changes), investigational products and compassionate use.

The systematic assessment of the available evidence on medicines will be the focus of the scientific reviews, while recommendations will target medicines not yet authorised or topics of particular scientific or public interest. These may include, for example, the monitoring of new outbreaks and epidemics and the information on potential radiological, chemical or bioterrorism agents.

All lists of medicines under assessment to address a declared emergency will be made public to increase transparency, as well as the CHMP opinions on the use of medicines not yet authorised, Product Information, EPARs end Risk Management Plans.

Two dedicated mailboxes are also available, the first for sponsors of clinical trials to request EMA/ETF support for facilitating CTA and approval and sponsors agreement to conduct larger multinational trials ([email protected]), the second for manufacturers to discuss with EMA/ETF their development programs or plans for scientific advice prior to any kind of formal submission ([email protected]).

Shortages of medicines

EMA’s extended mandate in this area include the monitoring and mitigation of shortages of critical medicines and medical devices, and the setting up, maintenance and management of the European Shortages Monitoring Platform (ESMP). The action also includes the establishment of the Medicines Shortages Steering Group (MSSG), which will be supported by the Working Party of singles points of contacts in the members states (the EU SPOC Network) and a network of contact points from pharmaceutical companies (the i-SPOC system). A corresponding Executive Steering Group on Shortages of Medical Devices (MDSSG), to be created by February 2023, will be in charge of adopting the list of categories of critical medical devices and to monitor their supply and demand.

According to Regulation (EU) 2022/123, pharmaceutical companies are required to identify a i-SPOC to act as the reference contact for EMA should the Marketing Authorisation Holder (MAH) have medicinal products be included in the lists of critical medicines. All information has to be provided through the IRIS platform; the registration process opened on 28 June 2022 and is comprehensive of two steps (the IAM preliminary requirement for the creation of the account and the following IRIS submission).

Scheduled milestones will see the establishment of a list of the main therapeutic groups for hospital care (due by 2 August 2022), the registration of i-SPOCs from MAHs (by 2 September 2022), and the definition of shortages of medical devices and in vitro diagnostics (by 2 February 2023). The ESMP platform is expected to go live by 2 February 2025, and will represent a single reference point to make information available on shortages, supply and demand of medical products, including the marketing status and cessation.

Expert panels on medical devices

Regulation (EU) 2022/123 establishes the hangover of expert panels on medical devices from the Joint Research Centre (JRC) to EMA, thus adding a completing new type of activity for the Agency.

The new Secretariat is coordinating the activities of the Screening panel composed by 70 experts in charge of the decision whether to provide a scientific opinion, eleven thematic expert panels and expert panels sub-groups (for a total of approx. 130 experts), and a Coordination Committee inclusive of the Chair and vice-Chair of all the expert panels.

The main task of the expert panels is to provide opinion to the notified bodies for certain high-risk medical devices and in-vitro diagnostic, for the assessment of their clinical and/or performance evaluation. EMA is specifically involved in the coordination of the Clinical Evaluation Consultation Procedure (CECP) for medical devices and Performance Evaluation Consultation Procedure (PECP) for in-vitro diagnostics. Further details on the procedures and their interfaces with the ETF is available here.

1 2 3 Next »

Technology & Research Archives - European Industrial Pharmacists Group (EIPG)

The debate on the “Do No Significant Harm” principle in R&D

ECA’s guide to compliant equipment design

HERA reports on stockpiling of antimicrobials

What happens after IP loss of protection

How to approach drug substance supply in new product introduction (NPI) processes

ACT EU’s Workplan 2022-2026

EMA’s Industry stakeholders group (ISG)

News from EIPG