Approval of the Data Governance Act, and EMA’s consultation on the protection of personal data in the CTIS

June 24, 2022

anonymization, CCI, Clinical Trial module, Clinical Trials Information System, Clinical Trials Regulation, commercially confidential information, common good, control over personal data, CTIS, CTR, data altruism, Data Governance Act, data intermediation services, data wallets, DGA, digital platforms, EDIB, ema, EU Portal and Database, EudraVigilance safety module, EUPD, European Commission, European Council, European Data Innovation Board, European data strategy, European Parliament, GCP inspections, GDPR, general interest, inspection reports, international transfer of data, logo, model contractual clauses, national register of recognised data altruism organisations, non-personal data, Open Data Directive, personal data, personal data spaces, pseudonymization, public information, public-sector data, reuse of data, searchable electronic register of public-sector data

by Giuliana Miglierini

The Data Governance Act (DGA) was approved and adopted in May 2022 by the European Council, following the positive position of the EU Parliament; the new legislation will entry into force after being signed by the presidents of the Parliament and of the Council and twenty days after the publication in the Official Journal of the European Union. The new rules governing data collection and sharing will start to apply 15 months after the entry into force of the new regulation.

The protection of personal data is also central to the new transparency requirements established by the Clinical Trials Regulation (CTR). To support pharmaceutical companies dealing with personal data within the Clinical Trials Information System (CTIS), the drafting of a dedicated guideline is ongoing. The European Medicines Agency has published a document to support the public consultation which will remain open until 8 September 2022.

The Data Governance Act

The new DGA regulation is part of the European data strategy and aims to promote the availability of data within a trustworthy environment, with the final goal to improve their use for research and the creation of innovative services and products.

Central to the DGA are some categories of public-sector data that are subject to property rights (i.e. trade secrets, personal data and data protected by intellectual property rights), which were not covered by the previous Open Data Directive (2019). Under the new rules, the reuse of such data shall be permitted provided that the public-sector bodies allowing it are technically equipped to ensure the preservation of privacy and confidentiality.

The DGA will also parallel the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) in providing appropriate safeguards against the unlawful international transfer of or governmental access to non-personal data (as the GDPR does for the personal ones). Secondary legislation may be issued by the Commission, for example, to ensure specific non-EU countries provide appropriate safeguards for the use of non-personal data transferred from the EU, on the basis of the existence of local equivalent measures of a similar protection level to that existing in the EU.

The reuse of public-sector data shall be justified with respect to the provision of a service of general interest; exclusive arrangements are needed, with a duration of 12 months for new contracts and 30 months for the existing ones. The access to data will operate through a searchable electronic register of public-sector data to be established by the European Commission and available via national single information points. Model contractual clauses may be adopted by the Commission in order to support public-sector bodies and re-users with the transfer of nonpersonal data covered by the DGA to third countries.

Data intermediation services

Data intermediation services are the core of the new business model resulting from the Data Governance Act; they will be listed in a register to improve transparency and trust. The final target is to enable a secure environment for the sharing of data.

Digital platforms shall represent the reference point for voluntary data-sharing between companies; they should fulfil all data-sharing obligations at the European and national level. Individuals shall maintain full control over their personal data; service providers should support them in exercising their rights according to the GDPR. New tools may be introduced to facilitate sharing on the basis of data holder’s consent, i.e. personal data spaces or data wallets. Service providers won’t be able to share data for purposes other than the allowed ones, and cannot benefit from selling data, even though they can charge for the transactions the carry out.

Data altruism is another key concept of the DGA regulation, making possible to voluntary share its own data for the common good, for example in the field of medical research. Data altruism will apply to both individuals and companies; the access to data should be possible upon registration of the interested entities in a national register of recognised data altruism organisations. A specific logo will support the easy identification of both compliant providers of data intermediation services and data altruism organisations.

The new European Data Innovation Board (EDIB) will be in charge of assisting the EU Commission on issues relative to the interoperability of data intermediation services and the development of guidelines on the creation of data spaces.

Data protection in the regulatory field

EMA’s draft guideline provides a description of the Clinical Trials Information System, its components and functionalities, as well as the rules for the publication of clinical trials information submitted to the CTIS (chapter 2). The protection of both personal data and commercially confidential information (CCI) submitted to the CTIS is then discussed (chapters 3 and 4), together with the protection of personal data and CCI in inspection reports (chapter 5).

The CTR established the CTIS as the single entry point for the submission of data and documents relating to clinical trials; the corresponding EU Database contains such data and documents, and the two are jointly referred to as the EU Portal and Database (EUPD).

The EUPD is the first component of the CTIS, representing the Clinical Trial module providing secure domains accessible to regulatory authorities and sponsors along the entire life cycle of the medicinal product and a public website where to find public information. The second component of the CTIS is represented by the EudraVigilance (EV) safety module, consisting of the Repository of Annual Safety Reports (ASRs) and the Clinical Trial Module (EVCTM) for Individual Case Safety Reports (ICSRs) of suspected unexpected serious adverse reactions (SUSARs) related to Investigational Medicinal Products. The optimisation of regulatory data flow also involve the use of data contained in the Extended EudraVigilance Medicinal Product Dictionary (XEVMPD), in the Organisation Management Service (OMS), and in the Identity Access Management (IAM).

The CTR regulation establishes the rules preventing the access to data stored in the EU Database on the basis of confidentiality information. Is this the case, for example, of personal data falling under Regulation (EU) 2018/17255 governing the protection of natural persons and their personal data. Commercially confidential information may also fall under this provision, upon consideration of the status of the marketing authorisation and unless there is an overriding public interest in disclosure. This means no data from the clinical trial application dossier can be made public before the decision on the clinical trial has been taken.

All personal data (such as the ones of trial participants) in documents submitted to the CTIS should follow the general principles on anonymisation and pseudonymisation of personal data. The draft guideline provides examples of the public information that should be made available with respect to a certain clinical trial. This should include as a minimum the main characteristics of the trial, the conclusion on Part I of the assessment report for the authorisation, the decision on the authorisation of a clinical trial, the substantial modification of a clinical trial, and the clinical trial results including reasons for temporary halt and early termination.

A dedicated module of the CTIS is meant for inspectors to manage all information relative to GCP inspections conducted under the CTR, including the uploading of the final report. To this instance, the guideline indicates no personal data should be included in the version of the inspection report due for publication.

IVD regulation in force: new MDCG guidelines and criticalities for innovation in diagnostics

June 10, 2022

(EU) 2017/746, assessment, classification, clinical evidence, development, EU reference laboratories, Eudamed, European Commission, European database of medical devices, expert panels, in vitro diagnostic medical devices, in-house devices, IVD regulation, IVDR, MDCG, Medical Devices Coordination Group, multi-centre performance studies, notified bodies, performance evaluation, post-marketing surveillance, Q&A document, Regulation (EU) 2022/112, risk-based approach, safety, Stella Kyriakides, transition period, UDI, Unique Device Identifier

by Giuliana Miglierini

The new regulation on in vitro diagnostic medical devices (IVDR, Regulation (EU) 2017/746) entered into force on 26 May 2022. The new rules define a completely renewed framework for the development, validation and use of these important tools supporting the diagnosis, prevention, monitoring, prediction, prognosis, treatment or alleviation of a disease, in line with technological advances and progress in medical science. “Diagnostic medical devices are key for lifesaving and innovative healthcare solutions. Today we are marking a big step forward for the patients and the diagnostics industry in the EU. The COVID-19 pandemic has underlined the importance of accurate and safe diagnostics, and having stronger rules in place is a key element in ensuring this is the case for EU patients.”, said Stella Kyriakides, Commissioner for Health and Food Safety

The European Commission also published a Q&A document to facilitate the comprehension of the new framework.

The main contents of the IVDR

The risk-based approach for the classification and development of in vitro diagnostics is at the core of the IVDR. There are four different classes of IVDs: class A (low individual risk and low public health risk), class B (moderate individual risk and/or low public health risk), class C (high individual risk and/or moderate public health risk) and class D (high individual risk and high public health risk). The assessment of the quality, safety and performance of IVDs by independent notified bodies shall be based on more detailed and stringent rules. Higher-risk categories will also be subject to further assessment by newly created scientific bodies acting under the auspices of the European Commission, such as the expert panels and the network of EU reference laboratories. Twelve expert panels have been established up to now.

Each single IVD will be associated to a Unique Device Identifier (UDI), so to facilitate its traceability along the entire life cycle. The identifier will also serve to locate the relevant information about a diagnostic marketed in the EU within the European database of medical devices (EUDAMED), where also a summary of safety and performance will be publicly available for medium- and high-risk devices. The database will also contain information about all economic operators and provide a repository for the certificates issued by notified bodies.

The new regulation strengthened the framework for post-marketing surveillance of IVDs, asking for a closer coordination of the vigilance activities by all member countries. The IVDR also introduced reinforced rules on clinical evidence and performance evaluation, including an EU-wide coordinated procedure for authorising multi-centre performance studies, and a specific regime for devices manufactured and used in the same health institution (in-house devices).

Difficulties in the timely implementation of the (EU) 2017/746 regulation may still be possible due to the lack of a sufficient number of notified bodies, as only seven have been designated up to now, established in only four countries (Germany, France, the Netherlands and Slovakia), while eleven other applications were pending in May 2022. To solve this issue, Regulation (EU) 2022/112 was adopted. A transition period up to May 2025 applies to devices that require a notified body certificate already under the previous Directive (around 8%, vs about 80% according to the IVDR); other classes of IVDs benefit of different transition periods (May 2025 for class D, May 2026 for class C and May 2027 for class B and A sterile).

Q&As on the interface with the Clinical Trial regulation and UDI

The Medical Devices Coordination Group (MDCG) published a Q&A document (MDCG 2022-10) to provide guidance on the interface between Regulation (EU) 536/2014 on clinical trials for medicinal products for human use (CTR) and the IVDR.

The guideline addresses the requirements for assays used in clinical trials, that may include IVDs carrying a CE mark for the intended purpose, IVDs developed in-house and devices for performance studies. Only the devices falling on the definition of an IVD with regards to their intended purpose are subject to the IVD legislation. The guideline also provides suggestions on assays likely to be considered IVDs, as they are used for medical management decisions of trial subjects within the trial.

Another Q&A guideline (MDCG 2022-7) provides clarifications on how to apply the Unique Device Identification system to both medical devices and in vitro diagnostics.

Topics covered by the document include the need for a new UDI-DI assignment in case the number of items in a device package changes or for single-use reprocessed devices, the requirement for economic operators to maintain a registry of all UDIs of the devices which they have supplied or with which they have been supplied, or the requirement of a new UDI-DI for substance-based medical devices, in case of formula quantity changes or additional claims.

The MDCG also addressed the assignment and use of the Basic UDI-DI and the determination of the ‘grouping’ for design or manufacturing characteristics, including the case of devices comprising a patient and a physician facing module, and the contents of the Declaration of Conformity (DoC). Labelling is also addressed, as well as rules for systems and procedure packs (SPPs) and configurable devices, as well as those applying to retail point of sale, promotional packs and marketing related samples.

The impact of the IVDR on innovation

The issues linked to the IVDR implementation and their impact on innovation and diagnostic laboratories, including the development and use of in-house devices, have been analysed by the BioMed Alliance In Vitro Diagnostics Task Force, and published in HemaSphere.

The Task Force identified two main challenges to be faced by the academic diagnostic sector. The first one impacts on the possibility to use in-house IVDs, based on the demonstration that no equivalent CE-IVD kit is present on the market or when the specific needs cannot be met at the appropriate level of performance by an equivalent CE-IVD. The strict exemptions applying to in-house IVDs (e.g. prohibition of transferring to other legal entities, compliance with EN ISO 15189 and justification of use, etc.) may impact also on the potential for innovation in the diagnostic sector.

The second challenge refers to the not so clearly defined boundaries between CE marked-IVDs, modified CE-IVDs, Research Use Only (RUO) tests, and in-house IVDs. The Task Force recalls the immediate applicability of the General Safety and Performance Requirements specified in Annex I of the IVDR, as they have not been included in the approved amendment of the implementation timeline.

Furthermore, only tests meeting economic viability may in the future be transferred from the academia to the industry, while rare or complex tests would probably remain excluded. According to the paper, the cost of diagnostics shall likely increase, and the academa should carefully consider how to support further research into rare or complex diagnostics in order to ensure their availability to patients.

Following the results of a survey among medical societies on current diagnostic practices, several suggestions are made to better support the implementation of the IVDR, namely by mean of the availability of diagnostic equivalents of the European Reference Networks for rare diseases and a concerted action involving all stakeholders. A joint biomarker-to-test pipeline between the IVD industry and research/academic labs would also be useful to facilitate the initial development and local application of innovative diagnostics within healthcare institutions or diagnostic reference networks with specific expertise, to then transfer them to manufacturers above a certain production volume.

The Made in Europe partnership for manufacturing

March 18, 2022

business models, circular economy, collaborative product-service engineering, cybersecurity, data economy, digital transformation, EFFRA, environmental impact, European Commission, European Factories of the Future Research Association, European manufacturing system, green transformation, Horizon Europe, Made in China, Made in Europe, manufacturing sovereignty, manufacturing sustainability, manufacturing-as-a-service, member states, next-generation sustainable materials and products, partnership, re-manufacturing, reconfigurable production lines, recycling, resilience, Strategic Research and Innovation Agenda

by Giuliana Miglierini

The availability of a robust framework to support a sustainable European manufacturing system is undoubtedly a priority in the challenging times we are experiencing. In the pharmaceutical sector, the reshoring of productions of both active ingredients and finished medicinal products is already a key point of the new EU Pharmaceutical Strategy and of the consequent ongoing revision of the legislation governing the sector.

A broader action addressed to the entire European industrial system was launched in 2019 within the framework programme Horizon Europe (HE) 2021-2027: the Made in Europe manufacturing partnership aims to become the main driver for sustainable manufacturing in Europe. The partnership was modelled with the contribution of the European Commission, member states and the European Factories of the Future Research Association (EFFRA); the latter is also the leading entity in charge of coordinating the initiative, which include all actors taking part to the manufacturing ecosystem (i.e. academia, industry, non-governmental organisations and the public sector).

The main goals of the Made in Europe partnership

The two themes of ecological and digital transitions central to the policies of the von der Leyen Commission are the main source of inspiration for the Made in Europe partnership. The availability of a European manufacturing environment able to compete on global scenarios thanks to its technological leadership is the main objective of the initiative. Many challenges need to be faced to reach it, especially in the field of the integration of technologies based on artificial intelligence to fully exploit the potential of industrial data, the reshaping of a circular economy and a high flexibility in response to emerging trends and issues.

The Made in Europe partnership represents a common platform for national and regional manufacturing technology initiatives, including the required disciplines and technologies. The principles governing its actions are described in a guidance document available at the EFFRA website; a Strategic Research and Innovation Agenda (SRIA) is also available.

According to the guidance document, manufactured goods represented in 2018 83% of EU exports, and accounted for a annual trade surplus of 286 billion euro. Despite this very high surplus, the document warns it may be not sufficient to cover deficits arising from the purchase of non-manufactured goods and services. Also considering these factors, the balance moved from a surplus of € 22 billion in 2017 to a deficit of € 25 billion in 2018. This situation may now dramatically evolve further, due to the high increase of costs of energy and raw materials experienced in the last month, as a consequence of the war occurring at the Eastern boundaries of the EU. A situation that might make harder for the EU to also face the competition of Asiatic economies.

The guidance document identifies twelve challenges to be faced by the European manufacturing industry, starting from the need to strongly reduce to the minimal level its environmental impact. To this instance, optimisation of resource efficiency and the carbon intensity of the entire supply chains are among the main factors to be addressed, leading to the opportunity for European-made environmental-friendly but high-priced products. This switch also supports the development of circular models for the economy, and the use of next-generation sustainable materials and products, requiring to manage profound changes if the manufacturing systems and related supply chains. Recycling and re-manufacturing may play in the future an important role in redefining products’ life cycle. The resilience and agility of the European manufacturing industry shall be also tackled, in order to limit the impact of sudden crisis, as occurred with the Covid-19 pandemic or now with the Ukraine war. This goal calls for the availability of flexible and reconfigurable production lines within a country or region, suggests the document. The pharmaceutical sector already experienced criticalities during the Covid-19 arising from the dependence from extra-EU supplies; the same applies to all European industrial sectors, and according to the Made in Europe partnership it should be faced through achieving manufacturing sovereignty and technological leadership in key areas and critical value chains. A very challenging objective, that requires a coordinated European effort on manufacturing.

As for competition from other economies, the document warns that big public-private manufacturing partnerships are being launched also in Asia and America (i.e. Made in China). Environmental and social aspects should be jointly considered in the location/relocation of manufacturing companies, to account for the environmental sustainability of the businesses coupled to the requirements arising from a EU’s population mainly living in urban areas.

The challenges of digitalisation

Many of the above-mentioned targets identified by the Made in Europe partnership may benefit from the potential offered by the implementation of digital technologies to accelerate innovation and industrial transformation, thus leading to the improvement of the overall efficiency of manufacturing. Data are becoming a central driver for the creation of value, but companies are called to better understand the data economy also from a non-technological point of view. Cybersecurity should be also carefully addressed, as digitalisation is reflected by a higher vulnerability to cyber attacks.

Digitalisation also impacts on the availability of new business models, such as “manufacturing-as-a-service” and “collaborative product-service engineering”. Automated systems governed by artificial intelligence are now widely available in many industrial plants, and attention should be paid to modes of interactions between collaborative robots and human operators. Nevertheless, the availability of trained and skilled human staff is considered as a major barrier and threat by the Made in Europe partnership, particularly for SMEs.

The planned actions

Six different calls for actions in the field of green and digital transitions were launched by the Made in Europe manufacturing partnership within the Horizon Europe work programme 2021-2022. The total available budget is around € 1 billion. Topics of interest included AI enhanced robotic systems for smart manufacturing, zero-defect manufacturing towards zero-waste, laser-based technologies for green manufacturing, manufacturing technologies for bio-based materials, advanced digital technologies for manufacturing, and data-driven distributed industrial environments.

The Made in Europe partnership was also involved in calls about reconfigurable production process chains, products with complex functional surfaces, excellence in distributed control and modular manufacturing, intelligent work piece handling in a full production line, ICT Innovation for manufacturing sustainability in SMEs, and digital tools to support the engineering of a circular economy.

A consultation on possible topics to be included in the HE work programme 2023-2024 is still open to comments and can be accessed by the dedicated webpage at the EFFRA website. A summary document is also available presenting potential recommendations and discussion topics received up to now. New possible lines of actions may address the availability of “excellent, responsive and smart factories & supply chains” , how to achieve a circular products and climate- neutral manufacturing, new use models referred to new integrated business, product-service and production approaches, and models for a human-centered and human-driven manufacturing innovation.

The new Annex 21 to GMPs

March 11, 2022

ACAA, Agreement on conformity assessment and acceptance of industrial products, Annex 21, clinical trial authorisation, custom clearance, documentation, EU Guide to Good Manufacturing Practice for Medicinal Products, European Commission, full batch documentation, GMP, GMP requirements, Human medicinal products, import of medicinal products, importation responsibilities, importation testing, imported bulk, imported intermediate products, investigational medicinal products, MAHs, Manufacturing Import Authorisation (MIA), marketing authorisation, marketing authorisation holders, MRA, Mutual Recognition Agreement, ongoing product quality, ongoing stability program, periodic on-site audits, Pharmaceutical Quality System, physical importation, PQR, PQS, Product Quality Reviews, QP certification, QP confirmation, Qualified Person, quality agreement, reconciliation of batches, record retention, reference and retention samples, review of deviations, risk assessment, safety features, sampling, segregated quarantine area, site of physical importation, site of QP certification, site of QP confirmation, testing requirements, transportation, veterinary medicinal products

by Giuliana Miglierini

The new Annex 21 to GMPs (C(2022) 843 final) that EIPG gave a significant contribution in reviewing the original draft and thoroughly presented it within a webinar to its members on August 2020, was published by the European Commission on 16 February 2022; the document provides a guideline on the import of medicinal products from extra-EU countries. The new annex will entry into force six months after its publication, on 21 August 2022. Its contents should be read in parallel with the EU Guide to Good Manufacturing Practice for Medicinal Products and its other annexes, those requirements continue to apply as appropriate.

Annex 21 details the GMP requirements referred to human, investigational and/or veterinary medicinal products imported in the European Union and European Economic Area (EEA) by holders of a Manufacturing Import Authorisation (MIA). The new Annex does not apply to medicinal products entering the EU/EEA for export only, as they do not undergo any process or release aimed to place them on the internal market. Fiscal transactions are also not considered as a part of the new annex.

The main principles

According to Annex 21, once a batch of a medicinal product has been physically imported in a EU/EEA country, including clearance by the custom authority of the entrance territory, it is subject to the Qualified Person (QP) certification or confirmation. Manufacturing operations in accordance with the marketing authorisation or clinical trial authorisation can be run on imported bulk and intermediate products prior to the QP certification/confirmation. To this regard, all importation responsibilities for both medicinal products and bulks/intermediates must be carried out at specific sites authorised under a MIA. These include the site of physical importation and the site of QP certification (for imported medicinal products) or QP confirmation (for bulk or intermediate products undergoing further processing).

Marketing authorisation holders (MAHs) for imported products authorised in the EU remain in any case the sole responsible for placing the products in the European/EEA market. Annex 21 requires sites responsible for QP certification to verify an ongoing stability program is in place at the third country site where manufacturing is performed. This last one has to transmit to the QP all the information needed to verify the ongoing product quality, and relevant documentation (i.e. protocols, results and reports) should be available for inspection at the site responsible for QP certification. QP’s responsibilities also extend to the verification that reference and retention samples are available in accordance to Annex 19 of the GMPs, and that safety features are placed on the packaging, if required.

Importation sites should be adequately organised and equipped to ensure the proper performance of activities on imported products. More specifically, a segregated quarantine area should be available to store the incoming products until the occurrence of release for further processing or QP certification/confirmation.

European GMP rules or equivalent standards shall be followed for the manufacturing of medicinal products in third countries due to be imported in the EU. The manufacturing process has to comply to the one described in the Marketing Authorisation (MA), the clinical trial authorization (CTA) and the relevant quality agreement in place between the MAH and the manufacturer. The respect of EU GMP rules or equivalent standards should be documented through regular monitoring and periodic on-site audits of the third country manufacturing sites, to be implemented by the site responsible for QP certification or by a third party on its behalf.

The QP of the importation site is also responsible for the verification of testing requirements, in order to confirm the compliance of the imported products to the authorised specifications detailed in the MA. The verification of testing requirements can be avoided only in the case a Mutual Recognition Agreement (MRA) or an Agreement on conformity assessment and acceptance of industrial products (ACAA) is in place between the European Union and the third country where the production of the medicinal product is located.

All agreements between the different entities involved in the manufacturing and importation process, including the MAH and/or sponsor, should be in the written form, as indicated by Chapter 7 of the EU GMP Guide.

The Pharmaceutical Quality System of the importing site

According to the European legislation (Chapter 1 of the EU GMP Guide), all activities performed in the EU with reference to the manufacturing and distribution of pharmaceutical products should fall under to umbrella of the company’s Pharmaceutical Quality System (PQS). This is also true for sites involved with importation activities, those PQS should reflect the scope of the activities carried out. A specific procedure should be established to manage complaints, quality defects and product recalls.

More in detail, the new Annex 21 establishes that sites responsible for QP certification of imported products (including the case of further processing before export with the exception of investigational medicinal products) have to run periodic Product Quality Reviews (PQR). In this case too, the respective responsibilities of the parties involved in compiling the Reviews should be specified by written agreements. Should the sampling of the imported product be conducted in a third country (in accordance with Annex 16 of the GMPs), the the PQR should also include an assessment of the basis for continued reliance on the sampling practice. A review of deviations encountered during transportation up to the point of batch certification should be also available, and a comparison should be run to assess the correspondence of analytical results from importation testing with those listed by the Certificate of Analysis generated by the third country manufacturer.

Full documentation available at MIA sites

The QP’s certification/confirmation step for an imported batch has to be paralleled by the availability of the full batch documentation at the corresponding MIA holder’s site; in case of need, this site may also have access to documents supporting batch certification, according to Annex 16. Other MIA holders involved in the process may access batch documentation for their respective needs and responsibilities, as detailed in the written agreements. A risk assessment is needed to justify the frequency for the review of the full batch documentation at the site responsible for QP certification/confirmation; the so established periodicity should be included in the PQS.

Annex 21 also lists the type of documents that should be available at the importation sites, including the details of transportation and receipt of the product, and relevant ordering and delivery documentation. This last one should specify the site of origin of the product, the one of physical importation and shipping details (including transportation route, temperature monitoring records, and customs documentation). Appropriate documentation should be also available to confirm reconciliation of the quantities of batches which underwent subdivision and were imported separately.

Requirements set forth in Chapter 4 of the GMPs apply to the retention of the documentation; the availability at the third country manufacturing site of an adequate record retention policy equivalent to EU requirements shall be assessed by the site responsible for QP certification. Should it be appropriate, translations of original documents and certificates should be provided to improve understanding.

The main contributions to the consultation on the revision of the pharmaceutical legislation

March 4, 2022

academics, active pharmaceutical ingredients, advanced therapy medicinal products, Affordable Medicines Europe, Alliance of Regenerative Medicines, API manufacturing, ARM, ATMP, bedside manufacturing models, biosimilar medicines, Bolar exemption, centralised EU monitoring system, citizens, civil society organisations, combination products, community pharmacists, cross-border healthcare, Decentralised procedure, EFPIA, electronic Product Information (ePI), EU SPC framework, European Commission, GDP, generic manufacturers, genetically modified organisms, GIRP, GMOs, GMP, healthcare professionals, hospital exemption, hospital pharmacists, incentives, innovator industry, MAH, manufacturing, medicine repurposing, Medicines for Europe, medicines shortages, microbiome science, off-patent industry, parallel distributors, patent linkage, PGEU, pharmaceutical compounding, Pharmaceutical Group of the European Union, pharmaceutical industry, pharmaceutical legislation, post-authorisation activities, pricing and reimbursement, public consultation, public service obligations, radiopharmaceutical legislation, rare diseases, RDP, real-world data, redistribution mechanism, Regulatory Data Protection, regulatory framework, Repeat Use Procedure, repurposing, research institutions, revision, Summary Report, supply chain, Variations Regulation, wholesale distribution

by Giuliana Miglierini

The European Commission has published the summary of the outcomes of the public consultation on the Evaluation and revision of the general pharmaceutical legislation, which closed on 21 December 2021. A total of 478 contributions were received, mostly by companies and business organisations (25.10%), non-governmental organisations (19.67%) and business associations (14.02%). At the geographical level, Germany contributed the 18.2% of feedbacks, followed by Belgium (16.7%), and France (9.2%); 12.8% of contributions came from non-EU countries.

Almost half of the respondents (48.1%) are registered in the EU Transparency Register; one third (33.1%) provided also separate position documents. The Summary Report and single contributions to the consultation are available at the Commission’s dedicated webpage.

Large companies represented the main industrial contributors (39%). Feedback from the pharmaceutical sector accounts for 28.4%, those from patient or consumer organisations 13.8%. A great part of the comments from public authorities (26 respondents in total) came from public authorities at national level (82.6%).

The main themes emerged from the answers

The Summary Report provides an outlook of the received comments from the perspective of the different categories of stakeholders.

Key topics of interest for the Industry included the decline of R&D investment and clinical trials in Europe, paralleled by the need of a more attractive regulatory framework for global investment and a facilitated access to value-added products and over-the-counter switching. Slow response rates of regulatory agencies, high administrative costs, convergence of data requirements of EMA and HTA, digitalisation of regulatory processes and optimisation of regulatory pathways for vaccines are other issues looking for solutions.

The impact of parallel trade on the security of supply, a predictable system of incentives for innovative products and unmet medical needs, a strong framework for intellectual property (IP) protection, and attention to the EU manufacturing of active pharmaceutical ingredients (APIs) were also reported.

Some of these topics were also addressed under the perspective of public authorities and healthcare payers. Comparative safety assessments, coherence with the blood, tissues and cells (BTC) legislation, affordability issues due to high prices/monopoly positions, transparency of medicinal product R&D and market launch costs, and abuse of existing incentives are other issues on the table, together with incentives for APIs manufacturing in the EU and a clear framework for medicine repurposing. On the clinical perspective, regulators ask for the inclusion of up-to-date clinical information in the Summaries of product characteristics, and for patient involvement in the definition of unmet medical needs.

The Summary Report also provides feedback on comments received by academics and research institutions, civil society organisations, citizens, healthcare professionals and other respondents. A total of six different campaigns were identified through the statistical analysis of the received answers, addressing respectively the need to update the radiopharmaceutical legislation, medicines shortages and the role of wholesale distribution, incentives for the innovative pharmaceutical industry and for generic manufacturers, access to treatments for rare diseases from the patient perspective, and the integration of microbiome science in the legislation.

EFPIA’s contribution

EFPIA, representing the innovator industry, highlighted the “significant interdependencies between the R&D policy environment and the manufacturing ecosystem downstream”. At the regulatory level, suggestions include the reinforcement of expertise-driven assessment and a more agile centralised authorisation framework, the improvement of expedited pathways framework supporting innovation, an expanded role of EMA in the assessment of drug-device/diagnostic combination products, and the replacement of the paper patient information leaflets with electronic versions.

The impact of further modifications of the EU SPC framework would need a careful assessment, while a Regulatory Data Protection (RDP) would support a better evaluation of products with lower development times, insufficiency/inadequacy of patent protection and new indications.

EFPIA also provides its vision on the sustainability of the off-patent market, including procurement practices and interchangeability of medicinal products. Actions to prevent and mitigate medicines shortages should be differentiated and coordinated at the European level, on the basis of a harmonised definition of shortage. Harmonisation should also represent a target for quality requirements at the global level, as well as for supply chain and GDPs. Other identified barriers at the manufacturing level include manufacturing site authorisations referring only to the local premises specified, full import testing, Official Medicines Control Laboratory testing for vaccines and biologics, and the revision of the Variations Regulation.

Comments from Medicines for Europe

Medicines for Europe, representing the off-patent industry, asks for a fit-for-purpose, efficient and fully digitalised regulatory framework. Among the priorities at the regulatory level are the optimisation of the Decentralised and Repeat Use Procedures. The regulatory framework should also avoid the unnecessary and unethical repetition of clinical studies, so to encourage generic and biosimilar medicines development. Global access and competition in the field of off-patent medicines should benefit of a single global development framework for multiple jurisdictions.

According to Medicines for Europe, the revision of the pharmaceutical legislation should also address the absence of rewards for manufacturers, in order to find a balance with their obligations of supply. As for IP protection, the association asks for the clarification of the Bolar exemption and the legal ban of patent linkage in all EU member states. The availability of multiple API suppliers should be encouraged through a single and efficient assessment of ASMP (Assembling Surfactants-Mucoadhesive Polymers) and API authorisations, and the separation between the regulatory dossier (regulatory assessment-subject of variations) and GMP (subject of inspection) should be introduced; a broader use of virtual inspections should also be promoted.

Other comments from industrial associations

AESGP, representing the self-care industry, considers the incentive of one added year of data protections not sufficient to reward investment in innovative switches. The burden posed by the Sunset Clause is also critical with regard to un-marketed licences, as well as extending the data exclusivity for a new indication or a switch. Stringent pharmacovigilance and post-approval change requirements are considered by AESGP unjustified or disproportionate, due to the limited gains in patient protection. The suggestion is for a risk-based approach for the submission of Risk Management Plans as a part of Market Access Authorisation, based on existing API safety info and provided there are no great differences in conditions of use. At the regulatory level, the applicant should be free to choose the procedure to authorise the product, and all procedures should perform equally and according to defined timelines. A broader definition of unmet needs would allow for more non-prescription medicines to be accessed; differences in the legal status of this type of medicines in different EU’s countries may also affect their availability to patients.

The European Healthcare Distribution Association (GIRP) addressed mainly issues related to medicines shortages. Among these are the need to strengthen the existing obligations for supply chain actors, and a better framework for the implementation of Article 81, paragraph 2 and 3 of Directive 2001/83 in member states legislation, so to place obligations on both marketing authorisation holders (MAHs) and pharmaceutical full-line wholesalers. The latter should be appropriately and continuously supplied by MAHs with the full range of products. Unjustified supply quotas based on legal and ethical grounds should be abolished.

A legal basis should be established for a EU-wide early warning system for anticipated/potential and verified/confirmed shortages for critical medicines. EU-wide harmonised categories for root causes of shortages should be implemented in the shortages databases managed by member states. GIRP also addressed access to market, suggesting pricing and reimbursement for centrally registered products should be separated from the availability of centrally registered products on national markets.

Market access has been addressed also by Affordable Medicines Europe, representing parallel distributors. The suggestion is for the Commission to develop a guidance on the launch of centrally approved products by parallel distributors in markets where the MAHs have not launched. An obligation for MAHs to supply entities launching in markets not covered by MAHs is also envisaged. To better manage withdrawals, Art 123 (2) of Directive 2001/83 should be amended, and a notification by MAHs should be made no less than 12 months before the withdrawal for commercial reasons. MAHs should also compulsory supply entities continuing marketing in markets undergoing commercial withdrawal; in this instance, guidance to member states should be provided on how to delegate pharmacovigilance tasks to another member state where pharmacovigilance data are available, so to limit technical measures aiming to reduce availability and ensure that products can still enter the market.

The Alliance of Regenerative Medicines (ARM), representing producers of advanced therapy medicinal products (ATMP), highlights the risk for Europe of loose positions in the competitive scenarios due to policy and regulatory barriers. According to ARM, all medicines falling under the ATMP definition should undergo the same regulatory requirements. A mandatory centralized procedure of authorisation should be maintained, in order to provide the level of expertise needed for the assessment of these complex products. GMP and pharmacovigilance aspects should be also coordinated at EU level. Bedside manufacturing models or other schemes should be avoided in order to prevent a two-tiered regulatory framework for ATMPs, leading to different quality and safety standards. Hospital Exemption (HE) should also be strictly regulated and harmonised across member states, with application only to individual patients on a case-by-case basis. Accelerated market approval procedures are expected to maintain rigorous regulatory requirements and high-quality standards for ATMPs. A pan-EU infrastructure and standards for collecting, storing and using ATMP-related real-world data, also for regulatory decision-making, is supported. The association asks for changes to the regulatory requirements for medicines containing genetically modified organisms (GMOs). Implementation of the EU cross-border healthcare legislation would support the administration of ATMPs to patients; HTA should be also coordinated at the EU-level.

Obligations accompanying any novel incentives should carefully take into considerations differences compared to traditional pharmaceuticals, as well as withdrawals due to market failures. A new business model is also recommended by ARM to address the shift in cost from chronic to one-time treatment. No modification of the current definition of ATMP to differentiate with respect to BTC products would be needed.

The position of community pharmacists

The Pharmaceutical Group of the European Union (PGEU) also contributed to the consultation with a position paper, providing the perspective of community pharmacists. The document suggests that issues of medicine shortages and patients’ access would require a “bold, ambitious, and coordinated actions at all policy levels”. According to PGEU, the revision of the pharmaceutical legislation should take the form of a new Directive, so to better respect the existing social, cultural and economic differences between European countries, which are reflected in the organisation of their healthcare systems.

An expanded role for EMA in the prevention and management of shortages, in coordination with the HMA, and the availability of a centralised EU monitoring system for (anticipated) shortages of all medicines in the EU would support the improved availability and access for patients. PGEU also asks for a better transparency and timely communication on shortages to affected stakeholders, as community pharmacists are deeply impacted; clarification of European and national laws related to the public service obligations of supply chain actors would also help to improve compliance.

A more effective redistribution mechanism for medicines available on the European market, irrespective of the country of residence of the patient, would help to face health crises and other special circumstances (i.e. the Brexit and its impact on medicines supply in Malta, Ireland and Cyprus). PGEU also suggests that pharmaceutical companies asking for a centralised marketing authorisation for their products should then commercialise them in all member states. Unmet needs of small patient populations may find an answer in pharmaceutical compounding by community and hospital pharmacists; this practice may also help to face shortages in cases where no suitable alternatives are available.

On their regulatory perspective, PGEU suggests that electronic Product Information (ePI) should complement, and not completely replace, printed leaflets. Digitalisation is deemed important also with respect to the exploitation of real-world data for regulatory decision making and Health Technology Assessment. To this instance, the association suggests to consider a rewarding for evidence generation in community pharmacies at the national level, so to better intercept data useful to evaluate the effectiveness, safety, off-label use and therapeutic added value of medicines in practice. According to PGEU, pharmacy organisations should also be better involved in integrated medicines development and post-authorisation activities, in coordination with other actors.

Repurposing of off-patent medicines should be targeted to areas where important public health benefits are likely to be achieved, but attention should be paid not to limit patients access to these medicines for the currently authorised indications. The association of community pharmacists also supports the reshoring of pharmaceutical manufacturing in the EU (e.g. active ingredients, excipients and basic chemical compounds particularly critical in terms of supply), a goal to improve European competitiveness and reduce the direct dependence from extra-EU countries. An improved diversification of the medicines supply chain is also envisaged.

Environmental issues should be tackled by the availability of innovative incentive and business models for the development of new antimicrobials and antibiotics, and a full compliance with environmental quality standards for pharmaceuticals. A coordinated approach among member states to the evaluation of cost-effectiveness and added therapeutic value of new therapies, including HTA, would support the affordability and fiscal sustainability of medicines. According to PGEU, pricing decisions in one country should not negatively impact on patient access in other countries. Cost-effective pharmaceutical care services at national level should be promoted as a mean to support the rational use of medicines through the adequate remuneration.

ACT EU: the EU’s vision for the future of clinical trials

February 4, 2022

academics, ACT EU, Artificial Intelligence, clinical research, clinical trials, Clinical Trials Information System, Clinical Trials Regulation, coordinated scientific advice, CTIS, decentralised trials, decisional evidence, EFPIA, ema, EMRN, EU CTR Coordination Group, European Commission, European medicines agencies network strategy, European Pharmaceutical Strategy, GCPs, HMA, IVDR, KPIs, multi-stakeholder platform, patient-oriented medicines development, safety monitoring, working parties

by Giuliana Miglierini

Just few days before the entry into force of the new Clinical Trials Regulation and of the Clinical Trials Information System (CTIS) on 31 January 2022, a new initiative has been announced to completely renew the European framework governing how clinical trials are designed and run. The strategic document ACT EU (Accelerating Clinical Trials in the EU) has been jointly developed by the European Commission, the European Medicines Agency (EMA), the Heads of Medicines Agencies (HMA) and national regulators with the aim to strengthen the European Union as a leading “focal point” for clinical research at the international level.

ACT EU shall support the achievement of the goals established by the European Pharmaceutical Strategy and the European medicines agencies network strategy (EMANS) to 2025. The initiative will be co-led by the European Commission, EMA and HMA; the proposed governance shall find inspiration on the model already in use by the Clinical Trials Information System, with an EUCTR Coordination Group with an adapted mandate and composition. The individual domains which form the overall matrix will be coordinated by the relevant functions available within the network. The formal public communication phase on ACT EU will start after the official endorsement of the initiative by HMA and EMA.

Six objectives and ten priorities of action for 2022-2023

The ACT EU strategy identifies six different goals for the future of European clinical research. Its leading role shall be optimised through a unified European position on clinical trials at the international level, a better ethical oversight and integration of ethics committees into the clinical trial and medicines regulatory lifecycle. Large-scale multinational clinical trials with broader geographical scope shall be incentivised, while reducing the administrative burden for sponsors and investigators.

A special attention will be paid to the generation of decisional evidence for unmet medical needs, rare diseases, and on vaccines and therapeutics for public health crises and pandemics. A truly high level and coordinated scientific advice is indicated as an important element in order to support the trial and marketing authorisation processes. The strategy confirms the need to adopt new patient-oriented medicines development and delivery models with pro-active engagement of all the stakeholders. The availability of an improved capacity both at the development and regulatory level is also deemed important to achieve the goals of the initiative.

These challenging objectives shall be pursued in years 2022-2023 through the activation of a set of ten specific priority lines of action. An initial exercise to map already existing initiatives within the European medicines regulatory network (EMRN) will be run, that will represent the basis for the consequent development of a governance rationalisation strategy. This might include, for example, the alignment of different expert groups and working parties in the EMRN and ethics infrastructure.

The smooth implementation of the Clinical Trials Regulation shall be monitored using a set of Key Performance Indicators (KPI), still to be developed; the modernisation of the good clinical practices (GCPs) should occur under specific ICH’s guidance. The attractiveness of Europe for larger, multinational trials should specifically address studies run in the academic setting. Furthermore, the academics and non-profit organisations may also play a leading role in the analysis of data arising from clinical trials.

Further actions will include the availability of a multi-stakeholder platform, including patients, and the engagement in the initiative of all enablers by mean of a targeted communication campaign. A tighter coordination of different aspects relevant to the planning of new clinical trials, i.e. the scientific advice on the trial approval and the design of the study, has been also announced. The increasing use of artificial intelligence and/or machine learning technologies in the clinical domain and issues pertaining complex and decentralised trials, as well as the interface between the In Vitro Diagnostics Regulation (IVDR) and the Clinical Trials Regulation will benefit of new targeted methodological guidelines.

As for safety monitoring of clinical trials, the priority is to start its integration into a pre- and post-marketing safety monitoring framework. At the educational level, the competences needed to face this challenging scenario for the future of clinical trials in the EU will require the activation of specific training curricula, inclusive of modules on drug development and regulatory science with links to universities and SMEs.

Four principles to guide all actions

The complexity of the ACT EU initiative will require also the development of a new approach to make available the resources needed to smoothly run all the planned activities, possibly including the exploitation of the expertise external to the European medicines regulatory network. The strategy indicates the intention to adopt a collaborative and integrative approach, so to achieve a large research impact in the EU.

To this instance, the four principles “Do, Require, Influence, Support” have been identified to guide the execution and coordination of the projects, the requirement of specific guidance to address the expectations on applicants/developers/researchers, the availability of key publications and leadership to support the transformation phase at all levels (including patient, the academic, etc.), and stakeholders interactions suited to support all the above mentioned objectives.

The initial mapping of existing activities should also led to the identification of the budget needed for meetings, inclusive also of the activities relative to stakeholder engagement, training, and communication. Any other activities falling outside the optimisation of the already existing ones would be self-funded by the respective organisations (EC/NCA/EMA).

Comments from EFPIA

According to EFPIA, the announcement of ACT EU represents the beginning of an exciting new phase for clinical research in Europe. The industrial association highlights that the innovative design of many clinical trials, especially the complex ones, requires an increased efficiency.

A study on medicines shortages from the European Commission

December 24, 2021

critical shortages, digital leaflets, Directive 2001/83/EC, emergency imports, essential medicines, EU list, EU pharmaceutical legislation, European Commission, exceptional circumstances, export restrictions, generics, inequitable distribution, intra-EU trade, legal obligations, legislative framework, MAHs, mandatory reporting, manufacturing issues, market withdrawals, marketing authorisation holders, medicines for human use, medicines shortages, national competent authorities, NCAs, off-patent medicines, parallel distribution, Pharmaceutical Strategy, Rebecca Guntern, regulatory flexibility, Repeat Use Procedure, shortage registries, shortage reporting, supply, wholesale distributors

by Giuliana Miglierini

The study on medicines shortages commissioned in March 2020 by the European Commission upon request of the European Parliament and Council has been published; the document, prepared by a consortium led by Technopolis, suggests 16 possible policy measures – both legislative and not-legislative – that the Commission may consider while drafting a new legislative proposal to govern the issue, expected to be announced at the end of 2022.

According to the current EU pharmaceutical legislation (Directive 2001/83/EC), marketing authorization holders (MAHs) have to submit – two months before the temporary or permanent interruption of supply of a certain medicinal product – a pre-notification to the relevant national competent authorities (NCAs) (Article 23a, a part in the case of exceptional circumstances).

The mandate to continue supply to cover the needs of patients, and respective responsibilities of MAHs and wholesale distributors are established by Article 81 of the same directive.

The new study will support some of the achievements set forth in the Pharmaceutical Strategy; another action undertaken to reduce the impact of shortages in the EU is represented by the EU Executive Steering Group on Shortages of Medicines Caused by Major Events, an initiative set up in March 2020 with the contribution of the Commission, EMA and member states.

“The Commission study on shortages by Technopolis confirms that current market framework conditions for off-patent medicines play against supply resilience – said Rebecca Guntern, President ad-interim of Medicines for Europe, commenting the release of the study –. As long as healthcare systems only focus on the cheapest possible price for off-patent medicines and do not reward investments to ensure robust supply chains, the only option for companies is to be the cheapest or to leave the market.”

The main outcomes of the study

The study on shortages focused its attention on medicines for human use marketed in the EU/ EEA in the period 2004-2020. The main objectives of the exercise include the identification of shortages’ root causes and specific characteristics, the assessment of the adequacy of the current framework (at EU and national level) and of possible solutions to address the problem.

Data from the shortages registries kept by national competent authorities (NCAs) of 22 EU’s countries was only available for years 2007-2020. Commercial data on pharmaceutical sales from IQVIA MIDAS was also used, and extensive consultation with stakeholders was run under different formats.

Central to the 16 recommendations highlighted in the study is the establishment of a centralized and harmonised EU-wide definition of medicine shortages, as well as of harmonised reporting criteria. The latter should aim to collect sufficiently detailed information on key parameters (e.g. product details, MAH, details on the shortage and impact).

Different definitions, systems for notifications and type of information requested are currently in use in the various member states; even the definition of “shortage” agreed in 2019 by EMA and HMA was not considered by stakeholders adequate to differentiate between critical and non-critical shortages. According to the report, this fragmented situation doesn’t allow for the sharing of data and comparative analysis between countries, thus resulting in the overall inefficiency of the system.

Attention should be paid also to the creation of a EU-wide list of medicines subject to critical shortages; specific policies and regulations may be developed on this basis to improve their availability. Medicines typically experiencing shortages are older, off-patent and generics drugs with low profit margins; the main therapeutic areas involved include pain, hypertension, infections and oncology.

The creation of dialogue platforms at the national level is also envisaged, where to exchange the point of view of different supply chain stakeholders (including patients and healthcare providers). The study highlights the high burden shortages create on pharmacists and physicians looking for the best possible treatment alternative for their patients. A possible way to address this issue would see the availability of information about alternative medicines in shortage databases. In many cases, this type of occurrence is referred just to some countries within the EU, thus suggesting inequitable distribution and access rather than global supply issues may play a major role in shortages.

Understanding the root causes

Limited reporting is a key point to be solved in order to improve the understanding of root causes of shortages. According to the study, a reductionist approach to reporting is often used; this makes fully evident just acute causes (e.g. a problem at the production site), but leaves unattended more systemic issues (e.g. consolidation of manufacturing, resulting in a very limited number of production sites) and market-related factors (e.g. single-winner procurement practices).

Quality and manufacturing issues account for approx. half of all cases of shortages, suggest the report; among commercial reasons are market withdrawals and unexpected increases in demand. The information available for the analysis was judged insufficient to exactly asses the potential risks linked to outsourcing of manufacturing activities (including the production of APIs) and parallel distribution.

The proposed recommendations ask for greater transparency of industry supply quotas as well as parallel traders’ and wholesalers’ transactions. Suppliers should establish adequate shortage prevention and mitigation plans; legal obligations for MAHs and wholesalers are suggested in order to maintain a safety stock of (unfinished) products for medicines of major therapeutic interest at EU-level.

A new legislation to tackle shortages

The provisions set forth by Articles 23a and 81 of the Directive have been transposed differently into the single national legislations, often well before the establishment of the shortages registries. Several EU’s countries have acted on their own to strengthen the system, for example establishing mandatory reporting on stock levels and export restrictions. Nevertheless, according to the study available data are not sufficient to draw final conclusions on the costs and efficacy of stock keeping obligations on the level of (notified) shortages in the countries where they were introduced.

A more pro-active approach to the management of medicines shortages by MAHs and distributors may be supported by the availability of a EU-wide and uniform legislation governing financial sanctions to be applied if notification requirements and/or supply responsibilities are not met. Other suggestions include the adoption of common principles for the introduction of national restrictions on intra-EU trade, and the availability of greater flexibilities for emergency imports of specific products in case of market withdrawals and other critical shortages. As for procurement, the study indicates the opportunity to address public procurement tenders also considering the incorporation of requirements for more diversified, multiple tenderers and thereby supply sources.

From a regulatory perspective, the document highlights the opportunity to reduce costs and simplify administrative procedures for the submission of post-approval changes. The availability of an accelerated mutual recognition procedure (MRP) within the EU is also suggested, together with a more efficient use of the Repeat Use Procedure. Improved flexibility should be a target also with respect to the EU-wide regulation governing medicines packaging and labelling, so to allow for the use of digital leaflets and multi-country/multi-language packaging and labelling.

Steps towards the final approval of the IP action plan

December 10, 2021

Artificial Intelligence, biosimilar medicines, blockchain, Bolar exemption, clinical trials, divisional patent applications, EFPIA, EPO’s mandate, European Commission, European IP Information Centre, European Parliament, fragmentation, Free Trade Agreements, FTA, generic medicines, guidelines, innovator industry, intellectual property, intellectual property rights, IP Action Plan, IP coordinator, IP index, IP protection, IP Scan, IP vouchers, IPR, IPR-intensive industry, knowledge-intensive industry, licensing, market entry, marketing authorisation, open technology standards, patent linkage, patent validation, pharmaceutical patents, pharmaceutical spending, R&D intensive industry, recovery and resilience capacity, shortages, SPC, SPC manufacturing waiver, Supplementary Protection Certificates, supply chain, traceability, transparency, Unified Patent Court, Unitary Patent Protection, UPP

By Giuliana Miglierini

The end of 2021 may see the final approval of many pieces of the new legislative framework announced in November 2020 by the European Commission. An important piece of this puzzle is represented by the IP Action Plan, governing the protection of intellectual property (IP); a step forward in this direction is represented by the resolution of 11 November 2021 on the Own-initiative report of the European Parliament.

The final text licensed in single reading is the result of the examination of the initial draft report – issued in May 2020 by the Committee for Legal Affairs, rapporteur Marion Walsmann – by several other Committees (IMCO, DEVE, CULT, AGRI).

The main points of the resolution

The resolution recognises the importance for the European economy of a balanced protection and enforcement of intellectual property rights (IPR). In years 2012-2016, the knowledge-intensive industries generated almost 30% of all jobs and almost 45% of total economic activity (in terms of Gross Domestic Product, GDP) in the EU; the IPR-intensive industries account for 93% of total EU exports of goods.

Europe’s recovery and resilience capacity is also highly impacted, as demonstrated by the pandemic when shortages of certain medicinal products and vaccines occurred. The EU Parliament acknowledges the role played by intellectual property in increasing the overall value of companies,especially the small-and-medium size ones (SMEs).

A current limitation to IP protection in Europe is represented by the still fragmented situation across different member states, which often leads to parallel national validation procedures and litigation for European patents. To this instance, the Parliament suggests the establishment of an IP coordinator at European level, to harmonise the approach to EU IP policy and enhance cooperation between the different bodies involved in the process (i.e. national IP authorities, Commission Directorates-General, EPO, EUIPO, WIPO, etc).

The Parliament also recognised the role IP plays in the pharmaceutical sector, where the availability of incentives greatly favours the development of new and innovative treatments. The resolution asks the Commission to support the innovative potential of European companies “on the basis of a comprehensive IP regime”, so to guarantee effective protection for R&D investments and favour fair returns through licensing. The availability of open technology standards has been valued as an important competitive element on the wider, global scenario.

Many different types of incentives are suggested by the Parliament’s resolution as useful to support micro-enterprises and SMEs in filing and managing their intellectual property, including IP vouchers, IP Scan and other Commission and EUIPO initiatives to support simple registration procedures and low administrative fees. The newly created European IP Information Centre may represents a fundamental reference point to increase knowledge in the field. The Parliament also suggests to introducing an EU-level utility model protection, not yet available, as a possible fast and low-cost protection tool to protect technical inventions.

Unitary patents and improved market competition

Still missing members states are urged to adhere to the enhanced cooperation scheme for the creation of a Unitary Patent Protection (UPP) and to ratify the Protocol to the Agreement on a Unified Patent Court on provisional application (PPA). The activation of this unique Court in charge of the examination of litigations would allow for a more efficient process and for lowering legal costs and improving legal certainty.

Fragmentation remains an issue also with respect to Supplementary Protection Certificates (SPCs): to this instance, the resolution asks the Commission to issue guidelines for member states and to provide a legislative proposal based on an exhaustive impact assessment. A major criticality to be solved is represented by the unitary patent not providing a unique SPC title valid across the EU; the own-initiative report also suggests the extension of the EPO’s mandate, so that examination of SPC applications could be carried out on the basis of unified rules.

Other important points needing attention to improve the presence of generic and biosimilar medicines in the EU are the abuse of divisional patent applications and patent linkage, which should also see an intervention by the Commission. The Parliament also opened the possibility of a revision of the Bolar exemption, which allows clinical trials on patented products needed to reach marketing authorisation of a generic or biosimilar version not to be regarded as infringements of patent rights or SPCs. This may also support the immediate market entry after the expiration of patent rights and SPCs. The Commission is called also to ensure the effectiveness and better coordination of compulsory licensing in order to provide access to medicines needed in case of health emergencies.

The resolution also addresses the theme of standard essential patents, which currently often leads to litigations, and it calls for the revision of the 20-years old system for design protection. Transparency on results obtained from publicly funded R&D is also recommended. The Parliament suggests artificial intelligence (AI) and blockchain technologies may play an important role in tackling counterfeiting practices and guarantee traceability of goods, as they may contribute to a better enforcement of intellectual property rights along the whole supply chain. The Commission should also work to establish clearer criteria for the protection of inventions created by the AI, without human intervention.

Comments from the industry

“The European Parliament has clearly voted for a strong and fair IP system by underlining the importance of timely generic and biosimilar medicine competition. The misuse of divisional patents, the need to enlarge the scope of bolar to include API and all regulatory and administrative steps, and the long overdue ban anti-competitive patent linkage are well known problems that the Commission should address in the IP Action Plan. The Parliament has voted; the Commission must act.”, said Adrian van den Hoven, Director General at Medicines for Europe.

A major point in the implementation of the new European policies is represented by the review the Commission is going to conduct in 2024 to assess the effective achievement of goals of the SPC manufacturing waiver, which entered into force in July 2019 and is expected to start producing effects in the second half of 2022.

Many of the themes discussed in the Parliament’s resolution were debated during a webinar organized by Medicines for Europe, with the participation of representatives from the European Commission and the European Patent Office.

EFPIA, representing the innovator pharmaceutical industry, focused its attention on the impact of past EU Free Trade Agreements (FTAs) on drug spending, timing of countries’ access to new medicines after global launch, investments overall and in pharmaceuticals, and clinical trial participation. A report by IQVIA published in the Federation’s website addresses the impact of IP protection on these elements. Results confirm the central role of the pharmaceutical sector as the most R&D intensive industry in the world, with R&D spending averaging over 15% of revenue. A strong IP protection framework available at the level of EU FTAs favours the attractiveness for investments in the EU and its FTA partner countries. According to the report, an expanded IP protection appears not to be linked to the generation of a higher pharmaceutical spending; drugs’ share of healthcare spending is claimed to stay flat or fall after an FTA, and prices for medicines to rise more slowly than the level of inflation. A stronger IP index, adds IQVIA, is also correlated with increased clinical trial activity in a country, bringing both clinical and economic benefits.

Consultation on the reform of the European pharmaceutical legislation

November 27, 2021

consultation, European Commission, reform of pharmaceutical legislation

In November 2020, the Commission published a Communication on a Pharmaceutical Strategy for Europe. The Pharmaceutical Strategy identifies flagship initiatives and other actions to ensure the delivery of tangible results: https://ec.europa.eu/health/sites/default/files/human-use/docs/pharma-strategy_report_en.pdf As part of the implementation of the strategy, the Commission is evaluating the general pharmaceutical legislation and assessing the impacts of possible changes in the legislation as described in the relevant inception impact assessment.

This consultation aims to collect views of stakeholders in order to support the evaluation of the existing general pharmaceutical legislation and the impact assessment of its revision. A summary on the outcome of the public consultation will be published by the Commission services on the ‘Have your say’ portal. The Commission’s questionnaire is under consideration by our Bureau members and the link is as follows: https://forms.office.com/r/EUHkxBN3Sk. The deadline to participate in this consultation call is the 10^th December.

We thank you for your participation.

Commission establishes portfolio of 10 most promising treatments for Covid-19

November 19, 2021

Actemra, anakinra, antiviral monoclonal antibodies, AT-527, baricitinib, casirivimab, cilgavimab, clinical trials, Covid-19, death, ema, European Commission, European Health Union, European Medicines Agency, European Vaccines Strategy, Evusheld, expert group, HERA, hospitalisation, imdevimab, independent scientific advice, innovation booster, Kineret, Lenzilumab, Molnupiravir, Olumiant, PF-07321332, promising therapeutics, remdesivir, rolling review, Ronapreve, sotrovimab, Stella Kyriakides, therapeutic added value, tixagevimab, tocilizumab, unmet clinical need, Xevudy

by Giuliana Miglierini

The second phase in the development of new medicines to treat Covid-19 – a part of the EU Strategy on Covid-19 Therapeutics launched in May 2021 – has reached a cornerstone with the announcement made by the European Commission of a first portfolio list of ten potential Covid-19 therapeutic candidates likely to be authorised by the European Medicines Agency (EMA). The only medicine authorised up to now at EU-level to treat Covid-19 is remdesivir.

The choice of the molecules to be included in the list was based on independent scientific advice by an expert group, and it is aimed to offer new treatment opportunities for patients affected by the disease in a way complementary to the preventive action of the already available vaccines. The strategy shall contribute to the achievement of the European Health Union, and it has been modelled on the example of the EU Vaccines Strategy.

Once available in the European market, the new medicines are expected to contribute to the reduction of hospitalisations and deaths from Covid-19. “We have already signed four joint procurement contracts for different Covid-19 treatments and we stand ready to negotiate more. Our goal is to authorise at least three therapeutics in the coming weeks and possibly two more by the end of the year and help Member States gain access to them as soon as possible.”, said the Commissioner for Health and Food Safety, Stella Kyriakides.

Three different categories of therapeutics

The initial list of ten candidates includes three different categories of therapeutics, and it may evolve in future according to the emerging of new scientific evidence.

Antiviral monoclonal antibodies have been identified as the most efficacious approach to be used in the earliest stages of infection. This category includes the following medicinal products under development:

Ronapreve, a combination of two monocolonal antibodies casirivimab and imdevimab from Regeneron Pharmaceuticals and Roche.
Xevudy (sotrovimab) from Vir Biotechnology and GlaxoSmithKline.
Evusheld, a combination of two monoclonal antibodies tixagevimab and cilgavimab from Astra-Zeneca.

The second category refers to oral antivirals, in this case too for early treatment; it includes the following candidates:

Molnupiravir from Ridgeback Biotherapeutics and MSD.
PF-07321332 from Pfizer.
AT-527 from Atea Pharmaceuticals and Roche.

Hospitalised patients may also benefit from the use of immunomodulators; four different possible candidates have been selected within this category:

Actemra (tocilizumab) from Roche Holding.
Kineret (anakinra) from Swedish Orphan Biovitrum.
Olumiant (baricitinib) from Eli Lilly.
Lenzilumab from Humanigen.

The scrutiny and selection of the most promising therapeutic options took into consideration 82 different molecules in late-stage clinical development. The analysis assumed that different types of products are needed for different patient populations and at different stages and severity of the disease. This scrutiny exercise was completely separate from the standard scientific assessment of the regulatory dossiers submitted for the candidates, that will be performed by EMA in order to issue the recommendation for final marketing authorisation by the EU Commission.

Steps towards the approval of the selected candidates

As announced by Commissioner Stella Kyriakides, half of the selected candidate therapeutics may reach approval by EMA by the end of 2021. These include products for which the rolling review is already ongoing or that have applied for marketing authorisation to the European Medicines Agency. Pre-requisite for the approval is the final demonstration of their quality, safety, and efficacy; there is still the possibility some of the products in the list shall not be authorized should the scientific evidence provided to EMA be considered not enough robust to meet the regulatory requirements.

Four other candidates are still in early phase of development and have already received scientific advice from the Agency; their rolling review shall begin as soon as enough clinical data will be available. The further development of these products will benefit by an innovation booster to support development activities.

As said, this is just a first list of promising therapeutics to treat Covid-19; some other approaches are expected to be identified as a consequence of the activation of several new initiatives by the EU Commission. Among these are the setting up of the interactive mapping platform for promising therapeutics which represents one of the first targets of action for the newly created Health Emergency Preparedness and Response Authority (HERA) (we wrote about this in October’s newsletter). The Commission also announced the activation within few weeks of the HERA website, where contact details and practical guidance for interested companies shall be found.

A pan-European matchmaking event for therapeutics industrial production has been also announced; this effort will focus on the development of new and repurposed Covid-19 therapeutics and it is aimed to mobilise the EU’s pharmaceutical manufacturing capacity.

The criteria used to select the candidate therapeutics

The European Commission published also a Q&A note to better explain the process that led to the selection of the ten promising therapeutics to be included in the list.

The portfolio of the selected products (authorised and under development) has been established by the expert sub-group on Covid-19 therapeutics (part of the expert group on SARS-CoV-2 variants) upon request of the Commission. The criteria used to run the analysis were approved by Member States in the Human Pharmaceutical Committee.

They include the evaluation of the pharmacological rationale on the basis of the available evidence of the potential role played by the single medicinal product in the treatment of Covid-19, its stage of development and availability of relevant data from clinical trials, the absence of (new) major identified safety issues, and the ability to answer to unmet clinical need and/or bring therapeutic added value. For some product categories, the efficacy against new SARSCoV-2 variants has been also evaluated.

Other points included in the assessment refer to the route of administration, treatment regimen, and formulation, and the company’s intention to access EMA’s early stage scientific advice procedures. The analysis run by the expert group did not focused on more industrial aspects, i.e. manufacturing, production volumes, prices and access conditions; these will be part of the considerations made by the Commission in order to activate its support instruments.

As for the three different categories of selected products, antiviral monoclonal antibodies are intended to mimic the action of natural antibodies generated by the immune system against coronavirus. They can exert both a curative and a preventive action against the infection, in particular in the earliest stages of the disease. They are usually administered by injection.

Oral antivirals are small molecules aimed to block the activity and replication of the virus. These too are early interventions targeted to prevent damage in tissues and organs and offer the advantage of administration as tablets or capsules, thus favouring compliance. Other plus identified by the expert group are a higher resistance to variants, and the therapeutic action maintained also in vaccinated patients.

Immunomodulators aim to regulate the excessive reaction of the immune systems against the virus, thus preventing the risk of hospitalisation. They represent a symptomatic treatment option for patients at severe stage of progression of the disease despite vaccination and antiviral therapy.

« Previous 1 2 3 4 Next »

European Commission Archives - Page 3 of 4 - European Industrial Pharmacists Group (EIPG)

IVD regulation in force: new MDCG guidelines and criticalities for innovation in diagnostics

The Made in Europe partnership for manufacturing

The new Annex 21 to GMPs

The main contributions to the consultation on the revision of the pharmaceutical legislation

ACT EU: the EU’s vision for the future of clinical trials

A study on medicines shortages from the European Commission

Steps towards the final approval of the IP action plan

Consultation on the reform of the European pharmaceutical legislation

Commission establishes portfolio of 10 most promising treatments for Covid-19

News from EIPG