ABPI Archives - European Industrial Pharmacists Group (EIPG)

A new member within EIPG


The European Industrial Pharmacists Group (EIPG) is pleased to announce the Romanian Association (AFFI) as its newest member following the annual General Assembly of EIPG in Rome (20th-21st April 2024). Commenting on the continued growth of EIPG’s membership, EIPG President Read more

The EU Parliament voted its position on the Unitary SPC


by Giuliana Miglierini The intersecting pathways of revision of the pharmaceutical and intellectual property legislations recently marked the adoption of the EU Parliament’s position on the new unitary Supplementary Protection Certificate (SPC) system, parallel to the recast of the current Read more

Reform of pharma legislation: the debate on regulatory data protection


by Giuliana Miglierini As the definition of the final contents of many new pieces of the overall revision of the pharmaceutical legislation is approaching, many voices commented the possible impact the new scheme for regulatory data protection (RDP) may have Read more

The UK’s statutory scheme revision for branded medicines

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

by Giuliana Miglierini

The amendment of the statutory schemeregulating the increase in pricing and consequent clawback payments of branded medicines proposed by the Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC) of UK’s government attracted the strong criticism of the pharmaceutical industry. The proposal aims to supersede the current scheme, established in 2018 by The Branded Health Service Medicines (Costs) Regulations. UK’s framework for pricing and clawback payments is completed by the 2019 voluntary scheme for branded medicines pricing and access (VPAS). Under the current framework, should a pharmaceutical company decide to opt out and not to join the voluntary scheme, then it becomes automatically subject to the statutory one. The current VPAS scheme, which in its original form dates to 1957, will end in December 2023. The DHSC is thus negotiating a new deal with the industrial counterparts to be effective starting 1 January 2024. Negotiations on the voluntary scheme are independent from the consultation on the statutory scheme, claims the DHSC.

The main features of the proposal

The statutory and voluntary schemes are administered by the DHSC on behalf of England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. The so received clawback payments from the pharmaceutical industry are then annually back allocated to each of the four countries on an agreed basis. According to the DHSC’s proposal, the ongoing negotiation should result in the two schemes – statutory and voluntary – continuing to operate in a complementary way. Should the negotiation on the voluntary scheme close without results, then the statutory scheme would continue to apply from 2024 onwards to all branded medicinal products. “With negotiations ongoing, there cannot currently be a default assumption of continuing alignment with any potential voluntary scheme provisions”, wrote the government. The proposed reform of the statutory scheme is comprehensive of an increase of the allowed annual growth rate, which is expected to impact on the back payment percentages. A revision of current exemptions from scheme payments should also occur.

A structure similar to that of the current statutory scheme should be used to manage these amendments, while a new lifecycle adjustment should be put in place to rebalance the payment percentages referred to medicines at different stages of their product lifecycle. As for unbranded biological products, which should be always prescribed by brand name according to MHRA’s guidance, the government aims to clarify that the statutory scheme should be applied to all biological medicines, irrespective to the fact they are marketed or not under a brand name. The government’s goal is to achieve a balance between these three objectives, “in a way that is consistent with supporting both the life sciences sector and broader economy”.

Comments from the ABPI

According to the Association of British Pharmaceutical Industries (ABPI), there is no equivalent in the world to UK’s voluntary scheme. The version agreed for the period 2018-2023 is based on a 2% per annum rise in pricing: pharmaceutical companies are called to pay back to the NHS rebates on their sales on all expenditure above the capped limit. On their side, the current voluntary scheme also requires the DHSC and NHS England to improve medicines access environment over the period 2019-2023.

ABPI mentions the dramatic rise in payments linked to the unforeseen circumstances of increased post pandemic NHS demand, which is posing major challenges for the UK life science sector. The members of the association more specifically criticise the cap growth mechanism, as well as the proposed lifecycle adjustment. The top management of leading pharma companies operating in the UK also expressed their views (read more, on the European Pharmaceutical Review).

More details on the proposals UK’s government confirmed its commitment to working with the pharmaceutical industry to facilitate the development of medicines in the UK and to support rapid NHS’s patients access to innovative medicines. The current form of the statutory scheme allows for a growth rate of 1.1% (nominal) per year for sales of branded medicines subject to the scheme. The payment percentage for 2023 and all subsequent years was set in April 2023 at 27.5%. The main exemptions refer to sales of pharmacy only and general sales list medicines, small companies with under £5 million sales to the NHS each year, sales of low-cost presentations costing less than £2, and parallel imports. The continuation of the policy of broad commercial equivalence between the statutory and voluntary schemes is the criterion chosen by the DHSC to protect the stability and efficacy of both: payment percentages in the statutory scheme would be thus comparable (but not necessarily identical) to those in the voluntary scheme. The new payment percentages in the statutory scheme proposed for 2024 would be based on a higher allowed growth rate of 2% (nominal). According to the DHSC, the maintenance of the current growth rate of 1.1% per year, in the absence of a newly agreed VPAS, would result in an effective decrease in allowed growth for most companies and might give rise to “a commercial environment for the life sciences sector that may not fully reflect the objective of supporting the sector and the broader economy”. On the other hand, an increase above 2% per year may lead to a unsustainable budget pressure on the NHS. As for the exemptions, the proposal aims to include in the statutory scheme some additional exemptions from payment which are currently part of the VPAS, namely referred to sales of medicines containing a new active substance (NAS) for 36 months from the date of their first marketing authorisation. According to the consultation document, this would incentivise companies to launch innovative medicines in the UK more rapidly than in other countries. An exemption from scheme payments for centrally procured vaccines (CPVs) is also part of the proposed package, and it would include vaccines for national immunisation programmes recommended by the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation (JCVI), procured by a central government body, or managed by the UK Health Security Agency (UKHSA) or a successor body. The third exemption to be included in the statutory scheme refers to payments for exceptional central procurements (ECPs). The measure would cover medicines related to purposes of emergency preparedness (i.e. national stockpiles) conducted by a central government body, or managed by UKHSA or a successor body. The lifecycle adjustment Innovative medicines are typically characterised by higher prices at launch, to then lower it while approaching the end of intellectual property protection. According to the DHSC’s proposal, initial prices are typically above the opportunity cost to the NHS, and older medicines would in general also benefit from greater price competition from generics and biosimilars. In some instances, states the document, this competition would be insufficient, thus resulting in prices not low enough to reflect the later stage in the product’s lifecycle. This especially applies to single supplier markets, where no competition at all is available. The proposal aims to overcome the current one-size-fits-all approach to the statutory scheme, and to introduce additional payments for older products with no competition, or a flat, lower payment for older products in more competitive markets. The so-generated additional income would then be used to reduce the headline payment percentage paid by newer products. According to the consultation document, these latter ones would refer to any product where the active substance has been marketed in the UK for less than 12 years.


UK will participate to European research programmes

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

by Giuliana Miglierini

The divergent road opened as a consequence of the Brexit, in January 2021, between the European Union (EU) and the United Kingdom (UK) is now converging again as for the possibility for UK researchers to participate to Horizon Europe (HE) and Copernicus scientific programmes. The agreement in principle reached on 7 September 2023 by the European Commission and the UK Government was facilitated by the previous Windsor Framework Agreement. It shall now be ratified by the Council of the European Union, and then adopted by the Specialised Committee on Participation in Union Programmes.

The EU and UK are key strategic partners and allies, and today’s agreement proves that point. We will continue to be at the forefront of global science and research.”, said the Presi-dent of the European Commission, Ursula von der Leyen.

The possible association of the UK to Horizon Europe animated a vigorous debate in the past couple of years among the scientific international community, as well as that of other third countries such as Switzerland (those association is still pending, see below).

The current agreements in place between the UK and the EU are not comprehensive of the participation of UK’s students to the Erasmus+ programme, participation that was cancelled by the UK government in 2020.

The financial terms of the agreement

The new association of UK to both HE and Copernicus programmes will become operative star-ting 1 January 2024, superseding the previous transitional agreement that allowed UK researchers to apply and be evaluated as other potential beneficiaries under HE calls. It will become possible for UK researcher to access HE’s 2024 Funding Programme and Work Programme (including the coordination of consortia), and to participate in the European Research Council and Marie Skłodowska-Curie Actions.

According to the European Commission, the estimated annual contribution of the UK to Horizon Europe and the Copernicus component of the Space programme should be on average €2.6 billion, in line with the terms agreed in the Trade and Cooperation Agreement. The EU Commission will issue twice a year a call for funds to the UK corresponding to the due contribution. The overall EU budget for Horizon Europe is €95.5 billion, plus contributions due by the various associated countries.

The agreement is also comprehensive of a correction mechanism referred to Horizon Europe, aimed to compensate the contribution of the UK, should its receipts in grants be higher than its contribution for grants. Under the terms of the Trade and Cooperation Agreement, an automatic correction to the UK’s contribution would occur if it reached a threshold of 8% over two successive years. A balance mechanism has also been put in place to compensate for the UK receiving significantly fewer grants than its contribution. In this instance, the level of UK participation may be improved, or (should it overpays by more than 12%), the issue may be object to scrutiny by the joint Specialised Committee on Participation in Union Programmes to agree upon the measures needed to balance the situation.

A temporary and automatic mechanism has been also agreed to address any risk of critical underperformance by the UK should the imbalance exceed 16%, based on the consideration the country did not fully participate in HE in the past two years.

The main fields of collaboration

UK’s participation to European research programmes will focus on area of mutual interest, i.e. emerging technologies, climate change and health. The participation to strategic parts of Horizon Europe – including those related to strategic assets, interests, autonomy or security – is subject to the previous assessment of UK participants on equal terms with other associated countries (Art. 22(5) of the Horizon Europe Regulation). The participation to other parts of HE will occur on equal terms with researchers and organisations from EU Member States.

Copernicus is part of the European space programme. The association will allow the UK to access a state-of-the art capacity to monitor the Earth and its services. Among the main goals of the programme is the understanding and acting on environmental and climate change related challenges. The UK will also have access to EU Space Surveillance and Tracking services.

The reactions

The announcement of the agreement on the association of the UK to European research pro-grammes found very positive reactions among the different parties interested in solving the issue.

Joining the Horizon Europe programme is a huge win for the scientific research community, who have been pushing for resolution over the past few years. UK innovation and research de-pends on international collaborations which are crucial for driving advancements in all areas of science, including the discovery and early development of new medicines and vaccines”, said Janet Valentine, ABPI Executive Director, Innovation and Research Policy. “The UK accession to Horizon enables the two sides to reinvigorate their longstanding partnership in R&D, and directly contributes to UK growth and competitiveness in the life sciences sector by making the UK an attractive destination for talented researchers.”

This decision represents a long-awaited signal for renewed international collaboration on fundamental frontier research in Europe. It will strengthen the research of all involved, both in the EU and in the UK. At the ERC, we look forward to welcoming back researchers based in the UK, after the trying last few years. They have been sorely missed, and will now be able to participate again as from our 2024 grant competitions”, said the President of the ERC, Maria Leptin.

The academic world represented by Cesaer highlighted the reintegration of UK into Horizon Eu-rope and Copernicus reaffirms the commitment of both the EU and the UK to advancing global scientific excellence. The association of the European universities of science and technology also supports further progress in building a wider international scientific community, with particular reference to Switzerland.

Today, Europe’s universities celebrate the end of a long road that began in 2016 and look for-ward to rebuilding and further developing close partnershipssaid Josep M. Garrell, President of the European Universities Association.

We are extremely grateful for the efforts of everyone in the European research community who has worked tirelessly to help secure this agreement”, added Jamie Arrowsmith, Director of Universities UK International.

Switzerland is still waiting for the association

Despite Switzerland being a very important country for research in life sciences, and location of many of the major pharmaceutical industries, the country is still waiting to restart the negotiations with the EU for its association to the European research programmes. The exclusion of Switzerland from any form of collaboration was the result, in 2021, of the political divergence with the EU on many issues.

We feel alone in the middle of Europe,” Yves Flückiger, rector of the University of Geneva, told Business|Europe.

According to the article by David Matthews, the incumbent Swiss federal elections in October 2023 and the European elections of 2024 may slow down the negotiations on the new political relationship. The association of Switzerland to EU’s research programmes might then not occur before 2025. Some explanatory talks would be already ongoing, adds the article. Sympathy for researchers in Switzerland was expressed by the ERC President, Maria Leptin. “They are not alone in the sense they are loved by all the rest of us,” she said. “There is very high-level research being done in Switzerland, same as in the UK. We all want to be one group that competes at the same level and is evaluated by the same high-level panels.


The new MHRA’s framework for clinical studies

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

By Giuliana Miglierini

The repositioning of the United Kingdom as a global leader for clinical development of medicinal products can now benefit of the complete renewal of the framework regulating clinical studies run in the country. Announced in March 2023 by the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA), the new set of measures represents the deepest reform of the sector in the last 20 years. The new package is based upon results of the public consultation run in Q1 2022 in partnership with the Health Research Authority (HRA) and the Department of Health in Northern Ireland, which collected more than 2,000 responses.

As stated in the foreword of the final document, which details the government’s consideration of responses to individual questions, the main objective of the reform is for the UK to capitalise on the opportunity offered by the country’s new position in the global clinical trial landscape. Furthermore, it represents just the initial step of UK’s new regulatory approach, which may include for example a wider use of real-world evidence, novel analytics and data tools. International collaborations are also deemed important, e.g. with the FDA’s Project Orbis and the Access Consortium (Australia, Canada, Singapore and Switzerland) and the International Council for Harmonisation of Technical Requirements for Pharmaceuticals of Human Use.

Our world-first Covid-19 approvals showed how important it is to ensure that regulation is flexible and agile. This overhaul of the clinical trials legislation will do just this – it will move us away from a one-size-fits-all approach to the regulation of clinical trials and help to streamline approvals by removing granular and duplicative regulatory requirements”, said MHRA Chief Science and Innovation Officer Marc Bailey.

According to the Health and Social Care Secretary Steve Barclay, the reform will make the UK more attractive for scientists and researchers. “These changes will help speed up clinical trials, without compromising on safety, and encourage the development of new and better medicines for patients. They come after the government announced additional funding of £10 million for the MHRA to accelerate the delivery of cutting-edge treatments including cancer vaccines”, he said.

The main goals of the reform

Patients are central to the UK’s reform of clinical trials. While efficacy and safety of new medicines under development remain the main target, great attention should be paid to reduce health disparities. To this instance, the MHRA announced the issuing of new guidance on how to ensure diversity of participants enrolled in trials, so to overcome imposed targets or arbitrary quotas. The improved attention to diversity would also support the delivery of trial results more adherent to the effective prevalence and clinical need across the population.

Flexibility and proportionality of the regulatory environment is another key objective of the reform. According to the final document, regulatory requirements should adapt to the current risk of the trial, and researcher should become subject to an overarching duty to consider proportionate approaches to clinical development.

Simplification of regulatory procedures is also expected, for example in the case of studies characterised by a risk similar to that of standard medical care. In this instance, regulatory review of the study protocol should not be needed anymore, substituted by simple “notification scheme” to enable approval.

As said, the attractiveness of the UK as a leading destination for international trials should be supported by streamlined and efficient application processes. This goal should include a new legislative action to integrate the regulatory and ethics reviews of clinical trial applications. Results from a pilot phase will be taken into consideration, as they proved possible to halve the approval times and cut the time from application to recruiting a first patient by 40 days.

All activities relating to clinical development should reflect the ICH Good Clinical Practice (GCP) principles for trial conduct. Regulatory timelines for approval are expected to compete at the international level, so to encourage sponsors to choose the UK as the preferred site to conduct multinational trials. According to the MHRA, the review of an application should take a maximum of 30 days in general, with a maximum of 10 calendar days for a decision to be granted once the regulator has received any final information. As for GCPs, compliance should also extend to service providers of electronic systems that may impact on patient safety.

Sponsors should also benefit from greater flexibility to respond to questions raised by regulators. In particular, the reform aims to amend the Request for Information (RFI) receipt, so that the sponsor has access to RFIs as they are ready rather than waiting for all requests to be made together.

The reform takes in consideration also the possible impact of incoming innovation, for example different types of trials and innovative study designs (e.g. decentralised trials). New guidance should be provided to set out specific details, thus avoiding any duplication. Guidance should be also provided on how to involve patients; family members or carers having a direct experience of the health problem in the design and conduct of a trial.

Transparency of the entire process should be supported by the compulsory registration of the trial in a World Health Organisation public register. A summary of results should also be published within 12 months of the end of the trial, and trial findings should be mandatory shared with trial participants.

Comments from the industry

We welcome the MHRA and HRA’s commitment to work with our industry to codevelop new regulatory guidance and their pragmatic approach to patient & public involvement and trial diversity. We look forward to working with them to make the UK an attractive destination for clinical trials.”, said Richard Torbett, ABPI Chief Executive.

On 19 May, ABPI further commented from is blog the current situation of clinical development in the UK. According to the association representing the British pharmaceutical industry, enrolment to industry trials decreased by 44% between 2017 and 2021, while UK’s global ranking for phase III trials dropped to the 10th place (from the previous 4th). ABPI also reports revenues and cost savings to NHS England from life sciences companies of more than £10,000 for every patient recruited onto an industry clinical trial between 2016 and 2018.

In view of the release of the independent review commissioned by the government to former innovation minister Lord O’Shaughnessy, ABPI has identified three main steps necessary to support the international competitiveness of UK’s clinical trials sector.

Rapid and smooth regulatory procedures are at the first place, with the request not to delay from the 60 days target for combined regulatory and ethics review, comprehensive of the administrative processes of costing and contracting a clinical trial. Early scientific and regulatory advice and sufficient resources for the MHRA to clear the current backlogs and codevelop new regulatory guidance would be also important.

ABPI also highlights the often-experienced difficulty in recruiting a sufficient number of patients. The suggestion for the government is to take inspiration from UK’s leading position in early-phase (phase I) industry trials in order to improve investment in late-phase trial infrastructure. To this instance, health real-world data may prove important to support the search for eligible patients in a larger population.

According to the industrial representative, the UK is also lacking a nationwide clinical research dashboard to describe its performance in clinical research to global sponsors. This should include metrics on volume, speed, quality, impact, and innovation.


Some perspectives on green pharmaceuticals

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

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


A golden era for UK’s life sciences and a new Code of practice for its pharmaceutical industry

, , , , , , , , , , , , ,

by Giuliana Miglierini

Less than a year has gone since the Brexit, and the UK innovation landscape is experiencing a new, vivid era of expansion under the stimulus of a strong demand from global investors. According to recent data of the BioIndustry Association (BIA) and Clarivate, the second quarter of 2021 (March – May) saw £1.56 billion investments, a record value for a quarter since the trade association began recording this data.

A record year for investments
The first semester has registered a total of £2.39 bln investments, almost the same amount raised in the entire 2020 (£2.81 bln). “The scale of these financings suggests 2021 will be another record year of investment into UK biotech companies. We continue to see deals being driven predominantly by investors from outside of the UK. Our hope is that the Government’s impending Life Science Sector Vision will be a platform for the UK’s financial institutions to add further fuel to take this sector into a golden age.”, said Dr Martin Turner, Head of Policy and Public Affairs at the BIA.
More in detail, UK biotech and life science companies raised £1,07 billion in venture capital; thirteen deals overcame £20 million, and four of them even £100 mln. The 60% of the total biotech venture capital invested in Europe is represented by UK companies; furthermore, £431 million was raised through three NASDAQ IPOs and £58 mln in follow-on public financings. “These figures show that our life sciences sector is booming, demonstrating the confidence that global investors have in the UK. The extraordinary innovation underway in the sector will not only increase our resilience against future healthcare challenges, but will boost the economy, create highly skilled jobs across the country, and enhance our status as a science superpower”, said Life Sciences Minister Nadhim Zahawi.
Biotech shares on the London Stock Exchange also continued to out-perform the wider market in the first half of 2021, according to the report prepared by Radnor Capital Partners on behalf of the BIA.

A new Vision of the life sciences sector
The UK government published it’s new Life Science Vision on 7 July, a 10-year strategy for the sector which builds on the success of the previous 2017 Life Sciences Industrial Strategy.
The same approach used to fight the Covid-19 pandemic will be used as a blueprint to tackle some persisting health issues such as dementia and cancer, for a total of seven critical missions. The others include early diagnosis and treatments, comprehensive of immune therapies and cancer vaccines, vaccine discovery, treatment and prevention of cardiovascular diseases and its major risk factors (i.e. obesity), reducing mortality and morbidity from respiratory disease, addressing the underlying biology of ageing, increasing the understanding of mental health conditions and redefining tools to fight them.
The new strategy also includes planned investments for a total of £1 billion, to be dispensed under the Life Sciences Investment Programme (LSIP). The programme is expected to boost further private sector investment, and the creation of a world leading UK life sciences venture capital ecosystem. The investments will be delivered through British Patient Capital (BPC), part of the government-owned British Business Bank, which will allocate the £200 million to specialist funds. Some other £800 mln will result from the collaboration between BPC and Abu Dhabi’s Mubadala Investment Company, one of the world’s leading sovereign investors. The LSIP will have access to a scientific advisory panel composed of leading industry figures, chaired by Professor Sir John Bell and in charged to share insight on key scientific trends.
“We are indebted to the ingenuity of UK life sciences and its pioneers, with the discovery of the Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine and the seamless collaboration between our scientists, industry, regulators and NHS saving millions of lives during the pandemic. We must make sure this is the norm and use this new way of working to search for life-changing breakthroughs against diseases such as cancer, dementia and obesity, as we have done with Covid”, said Prime Minister Boris Johnson.
“Crucially, we’re going to build a pro-enterprise environment where our life sciences firms can access the finance to grow, are incentivised to onshore manufacturing, and can commercialise breakthrough products right here in the UK – rather than elsewhere – as we cement the UK’s position as a science superpower”, added Business Secretary Kwasi Kwarteng.
Central to the new Vision is the emulation of the approach used by the UK Vaccines Taskforce to fully exploit the private sector expertise while removing unnecessary bureaucracy. New regulatory freedoms and opportunities are expected for the UK life science business sector as a result of the country’s new position outside the EU. The UK’s regulatory agency MHRA is expected to act as an independent, sovereign regulator with great agility and with a focus on getting vaccines, drugs, and technologies to patients as safely and quickly as possible.
“The BIA’s focus will be to increase the expert pool of UK based capital needed for innovative UK life science firms to grow to scale. This will enable UK investors and pension savers, to secure the economic benefit from this burgeoning golden age for UK life sciences while at the same time enabling NHS patients to secure the health benefit of global biotech innovation”, said BIA’s Chief Executive and former member of the Vaccine Taskforce Steve Bates.

A new Code of Practice for the pharmaceutical industry
The renewal of the UK’s landscape in life sciences also pass through the new Code of Practice for the Pharmaceutical Industry, which has become operative since 1st July 2021 without transition period, with the exception of companies wishing to continue with ongoing Medical and Educational Goods and Services where the transition period will close on 31 December 2021.
The Code published by the Association of British Pharmaceutical Industry (ABPI) is operated under the supervision of the Prescription Medicines Code of Practice Authority (PMCPA), established by ABPI in 1993 as an independent organism. The previous version of the code was released in 2019.
The Code provides indication on the acceptable practices for the promotion of prescription medicines to both health professionals and other relevant decision makers. Requirements for interactions with health professionals and standards for the provision of information about prescription medicines to the public and patients (including patient organisations) are also included.
There are four principles inspiring the document, first among which the benefit and safety of patients. Integrity and commitment towards responsible, professional, ethics and transparent relationships, transparency and respect will guide the future activities of the UK pharmaceutical industry in the promotion of medicines.
Even if the Code refers only to activities carried out by the industry, its indications should also inspire individuals and organisations in their interactions with the pharmaceutical environment.
Training of personnel and robust operating procedures to review all materials and validate their compliance to the rules highlighted by the Code and other legal requirements are other principles inspiring the document. The Code incorporates some other references important in the field of the promotion of pharmaceutical products, among which those contained in the Codes of Practice of the International Federation of Pharmaceutical Manufacturers and Associations’ (IFPMA), the European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industries and Associations’ (EFPIA), the WHO’s Ethical Criteria for Medicinal Drug Promotion, the EU’s Directive 2001/83/EC and 2004/27/EC on human medicinal products, and the Human Medicines Regulations 2012 No. 1916.