generics Archives - European Industrial Pharmacists Group (EIPG)

Home  /  Reform of pharma legislation: the debate on regulatory data protection  /  generics

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

•••

Reform of pharma legislation: the debate on regulatory data protection

April 1, 2024 , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

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 on the entire European pharmaceutical and healthcare sectors. In the meantime, the Committee for Legal Affairs of the European Parliament approved the amendment to the Regulation proposed by the Commission to govern the issuing of Union compulsory licences for the manufacturing of medicinal products during crisis.

The initial proposal on regulatory data protection

To resume the main features of the EU Commission proposal on incentives referred to regulatory data protection (RDP), the current 8+2(+1) scheme would be remodulated to grant a standard 6-year period of regulatory data protection, valid for all newly approved medicines. This might be followed by extension periods of different length, depending on specific conditions (see here the impact report, Chap. VII).

The proposed additional criteria may support an RDP duration up to 12 years, as for example in the case of medicines for orphan diseases or unmet medical needs. But the more debated criteria proposed by the Commission is perhaps the request to the holders of marketing authorisations (MAH) to market newly approved medicinal products in all EU members states at the same time, within 2 years from the date of the MA. Should this occur, the MAH may benefit from a 2-year extension of the RDP.

New chemical substances undergoing clinical testing against a relevant and evidence-based comparator may also benefit of a 6-month extension of the RDP. Should the product be already in the market, the approval of a new indication coupled to the provision of a significant clinical benefit may extend regulatory data protection for 1 year. The same extension applies to products that changed their prescription status on the basis of significant non-clinical tests or clinical studies. Repurposed medicinal products may benefit from a 4-year extension of regulatory data protection in case of a new therapeutic indication not previously authorised in the EU.

The RDP is critical for the EU’s competitiveness

According to the Director General of EFPIA, Nathalie Moll, there are three key areas to be kept in mind while reaching the final decision: the positive net financial impact of regulatory data protection for both patients, the EU and member states, the R&D attractiveness at the EU and national level, and the fact the US has currently a more attractive RDP than the EU (see here more).

The regulatory data protection scheme proposed by the Commission might greatly reduce the number of new medicines available in Europe in the next 15 years, says EFPIA. The Commission’s estimate of €1.2 billion/year of additional costs for members states for every additional year of regulatory data protection would be wrong, it adds, as it is based on the List Prices of medicines. But many EU countries have clawback-type mechanisms to reduce this type of impact, which should be added to the indirect impact innovative medicines may exert in reducing other costs supported by healthcare systems. Thus, the final economic impact calculated by EFPIA would be €2 billion/year.

The attractiveness for R&D investments of a certain geographical area may prove also important, especially in the case of advanced therapies and complex types of therapeutics or to support research targeted to unmet medical needs.

As for the duration of regulatory data protection in the US, according to EFPIA this reaches 12 years (including market protection) for biologics and around 6-7 years of market protection for small molecules. ”RDP for non-biologics is the only element of IP where Europe leads on the US and is in the control of EU policy makers”, wrote Nathalie Moll.

On the other side of the game, Medicines for Europe on behalf of the generic and biosimilar industry also addressed a note to the rapporteur and shadow-rapporteur of the EU pharmaceutical legislation.

The key message is that there might have been a misunderstanding about the concrete impact of the extensions of regulatory data protection proposed by the EU Parliament, which received a strong political support, due to the complex interactions between the pharma legislation and the IP and SPC legislations.

The correct understanding of the dual track of pharmaceutical incentives (regulatory and patent/ SPCs) should be thus the key area of attention during the final set up of the new provisions. According to Medicines for Europe, some parliamentary amendment would extend the duration of regulatory data protection well beyond the duration of SPC, thus further extending the global protection (up to 13.5 or 18 years, depending on the specific proposal) and preventing the entry of generics and biosimilars in the European market.

The analysis run by the industrial association also calculated the potential impact on pharmaceutical budgets corresponding to the possible different lengths of regulatory data protection, and how the same budget might be used to potentiate the resources of healthcare system in terms of available nurses and doctors. The calculated range spans from €2.5-5.35 bln for the three countries considered (France, Germany, Spain) up to €19.5 bln to the entire EU in the case of 13.5 year extension, and it reaches, respectively, €13.2-24 bln and €99.5 bln in the case of the 18 years extension.

A strong critical voice in support of a true competition

The European Social Insurance Platform (ESIP) published a note at the end of February signed by its Director, Yannis Natsis. “Let us be clear that these protection periods are not companies’ rights, but privileges granted to the manufacturers by the European legislators, and they come at a significant cost for public budgets”, wrote Mr. Natsis.

The extension of regulatory data protection would thus result in a possible distortion of competition, and in a delay of patients’ access to treatments. Mr. Natsis also identified the “elephant in the room” of the European healthcare system, i.e. the extremely high prices of medicines in many therapeutic areas. An issue that ESIP’s Director considers a systemic problem.

The note supports the proposed 6-year standard regulatory data protection, with extensions that should not exceed the current situation. Incentives for orphan medicines should go in favour of truly rare diseases and unmet medical needs. ESIP also supports the availability of alternative incentive mechanisms to reward development of new antibiotics, instead of the Transferable exclusivity vouchers (TEVs) that should be replaced.

ESIP’s Director also wrote that “Put simply, we need to take these industry threats with a pinch of salt”, with reference to the pharmaceutical industry having repeatedly threatened to leave Europe since the beginning of the revision of the pharma legislation. “In any case, we cannot afford to end up with a reform which hands a free-for-all incentives “menu” to the companies. These are very expensive “carrots”. Such an outcome will be counter-productive for patients and self-defeating for healthcare systems across Europe”, commented Yannis Natsis.

From the perspective of statutory payers, a well-functioning generic competition allows to treat larger groups of patients at lower prices, while the pricing and business strategies of pharma companies often would limit the possibility to treat patients with most severe conditions. The request for the Parliament is thus to reach a well-balanced text. “There needs to be a renewed social contract between the pharmaceutical industries and the society at large”, wrote Yannis Natsis.

The JURI Committee amendments to the proposed Regulation on the Union compulsory licensing

In the meantime, the Committee for Legal Affairs (JURI) of the EU Parliament approved on 13 February 2024 (17 votes in favour, 6 against) the report detailing the amendments to the proposed Regulation on the Union compulsory licensing during crisis and emergencies for the public health.

The Report also include the opinion given by the Committee on International Trade, and the list of entities or persons that provided input to the rapporteur (Adrián Vázquez Lázara) in the preparation of the report, among which are many industrial associations.

The Explanatory Note by the rapporteur highlights the need to maintain the equilibrium between innovation and rapid access to essential products. The JURI Committee has identified several aspects of the proposed Regulation that should be better clarified to ensure legal certainty, and which were addressed within the approved amendments.

The definition of “crisis” raised many concerns; the proposed amendments refer to a cross-border effect in the UE with involvement of two or more member states. Measures put in place should be proportionate, and not unnecessarily and disproportionally affecting the rights of citizens or the protection of intellectual property rights of businesses.

Union compulsory licenses might be issued only after the rights-holder has the time to negotiate a voluntary license with a potential licensee. To this instance, the Parliament has indicated 4 weeks as a suitable period for the Commission to wait for the results of ongoing negotiations. Furthermore, the Union compulsory licensing should remain a last resort instance and should have a duration strictly in line with that of the crisis, with a maximum of 12 months unless otherwise needed.

According to the JURI Committee, the definition of the know-how necessary for the manufacturing of certain products should be also clarified, as it is key to activate an expanded production capacity during crises. A new proposed recital indicates the Commission should have the authority to oblige rights-holders to provide all needed information, including know-how, especially for highly complex pharmaceuticals such as vaccines.

The Committee also highlighted the need for a better definition of the role of the advisory board. The proposed amendment indicates the inclusion as observers of other crisis relevant bodies at the UE level to ensure consistency with the measure, and of representatives of national authorities responsible for issuing compulsory licenses under the national patent laws.

Rights-holders should be able to provide their comments and other pertinent information to the advisory board prior to the final issuing of the Union compulsory licence. The procedure should start with the identification of the intellectual property rights concerned, and of potential licensees. The Commission should not grant any compulsory licences should the rights-holders not have been completely identified.

The JURI Committee also amended the text of the proposal to indicate the remuneration for the rights-holders should be determined, among others, considering the total gross revenue gene-rated by the licensee from the pertinent activities governed by the Union compulsory licence.

Remuneration should be also provided in cases where the rights-holder should disclose the trade secrets strictly necessary to achieve the purpose of the licence. A new amendment asks the Commission to assess the list of crisis modes or emergency modes reported in the Annex to the Regulation every two years from its entry into force, or without undue delay in case of exceptional threats to public safety or national security.


The UK’s statutory scheme revision for branded medicines

October 20, 2023 , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

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.


The proposals of the EU Commission for the revision of the IP legislation

May 12, 2023 , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

By Giuliana Miglierini

In parallel to the new pharmaceutical legislation, on 27 April 2023 the EU Commission issued the proposal for the new framework protecting intellectual property (IP). The reform package impacts on the pharmaceutical industry, as it contains proposals on Supplementary Protection Certificates(SPCs) and compulsory licensing (CL) in crisis situations. It also includes a new Regulation on Standard Essential Patents(SEPs).

The proposed reform, which is part of the EU Industrial Strategy, will now undergo the scrutiny of the European Parliament and Council. It aims to improve European competitiveness, innovation and technological sovereignity, with a special attention to the role played by SMEs. The proposal is based on comments received during the consultation on the Action Plan on Intellectual Property issued in November 2020. The IP legislative framework will complement the Unitary Patent system, that will fully entry into force on 1 June 2023.

Supplementary Protection Certificates

Central to the reform of the SPC system is the creation of a unitary SPC to complement the Unitary Patent. The aim is to reduce the current fragmentation in the issuing of SPCs at the national level, which often leads to complex interpretation of patents’ expiry dates, and consequent legal uncertainty. The new system would not replace the existing national SPC schemes.

Procedures should be simplified, with a single application to be submitted to the EU Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO), which would be responsible for its central examination in close cooperation with EU national IP offices. The process would lead to national SPCs granted for each of the designated member states (MS), plus a unitary SPC if required by the applicant (here the Q&As).

According to the Commission, approx. 25% of current SPC procedures have contradictory outcomes. The mean number of annual SPC applications is 81 per MS, with a total cost of €192,000 over the 5 years of duration (compared to roughly €3,000 in the US and €4,200 in Japan). Savings from the new procedures may amount to up €137,000 for the EU27 wide, five years long SPC protection. A central SPC database is also planned in order to increase transparency.

The proposed reform is comprehensive of a Regulation specific to medicinal products and a second one focusing on plant protection products, plus parallel recasting regulations to review the current legislative provisions (i.e. Regulation (EC) No 469/2009). Innovators would be incentivised to use unitary SPCs, since otherwise a unitary patent could be extended at higher costs only by means of national SPCs. Infringements of unitary SPCs would fall under the judgement of the UPC Court.

The Commission expects the development and access to generic medicines will be facilitated. In particular, SMEs will be able to submit observations during the examination of a centralised SPC application, and to file an opposition in order to centrally challenge the validity of the SPC protection, if justified. The new framework complements the proposed pharmaceutical legislation, for example on the Bolar exception. This should allow the generic industry to perform research and testing for preparing regulatory approval also while a patent/SPC is still in force.

Compulsory licensing

Compulsory licensing may be used during crisis in order to provide access to relevant products and technologies, should result in impossible (or not adequate) to close voluntary licensing agreements with owners of IP rights. The current fragmentation of procedures at the national level results in a wide legal uncertainty (see also the published Q&As). The new framework would complement other EU crisis tools, such as the Single Market Emergency Instrument, HERA regulations and the Chips Act.

According to the proposal, a Union compulsory licence can only be granted after activation of an emergency or crisis mode at EU level. Instruments to trigger this fundamental passage are listed in an Annex, so to improve legal certainty. A remuneration scheme for IPR holders is also included, on the basis of successive steps in the activation and termination of compulsory licensing.

The existing national frameworks on compulsory licensing will continue to operate, and they may be used to manage local crisis. Compulsory licensing of exported products would not be allowed.

Standard Essential Patents

SEPs refer to technologies essential for the implementation of a technical standard adopted by a standard developing organisation. They are typical of the ITC industrial sector, and central to building the Internet of Things.

To improve the transparency and legal certainty of SEPs, the proposal aims to ensure innovation would be run in the EU by both EU SEP owners and implementers. End users would benefit from products based on the latest standardised technologies at fair and reasonable prices. SEPs licensing is based on the FRAND scheme (fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory) for the remuneration of patent holders.

Comments from the stakeholders

EFPIA granted positive feedback on the simplification and harmonisation of the SPC system and to the opportunities offered by the unitary SPC. On the other hand, the proposals on compulsory licensing didn’t find the agreement of the research-based pharmaceutical industry.

According to a note, voluntary licensing would be the preferred instrument for innovators, as it allows for the choice of the best-positioned and trusted partners to speed up production and distribution of medicinal products during health crisis. On the contrary, compulsory licensing is seen as a threat to investment stability of the EU’s IP system and to the overall innovation pipeline.

“Protecting the EU’s intellectual property framework could not be more important if we are to close the investment gap between Europe, the US and increasingly China and continue to offer patients the best possible treatments. Yet we are seeing multiple proposals emerging from the European Commission in the pharmaceutical legislation and patent package which tend towards the opposite”, said EFPIA Director General Nathalie Moll.

Medicines for Europe (MfE), on behalf of the generic and biosimilar industry, said that while “voluntary licensing agreements are relevant for health crises, we will contribute constructively to the EU-wide compulsory licensing system”. The request to the Commission is to make it a remedy also for anti-competitive abuses of the patent system, according to art. 31(k) of the TRIPS Agreement.

As for new SPCs, MfE highlights the new regime would extend their geographical scope from the current 20 out of 27 MS covered on average. “The proposal for a reform in the SPC system has the potential to reduce fragmentation in Europe but the legislation must ensure improved quality and transparency of granting procedures to prevent misuse by right holders to delay competition”, said MfE Director General Adrian van den Hoven.

Critics of the proposed scheme for compulsory licensing also came from EUCOPE, representing pharmaceutical entrepreneurs. According to the Confederation, the Commission’s proposal would further weakening the value of intellectual property rights within the EU. “Together with the proposal on the revision of the general pharmaceutical legislation, it is another indicator that the development of an innovation-friendly environment is not a priority, contrary to statements in the Intellectual Property Action Plan”, it states in a note.

For EUCOPE, the proposed SPC regime would not amend the substantive elements of the current system. Furthermore, a centralised SPC application would only be possible on the basis of a European patent, including a unitary patent, and for products with a centralised marketing authorisation. EUCOPE position goes for an optional EU-wide SPC, so to allow flexibility for IP owners in deciding their strategy for the protection of IP rights.


Comments to the draft ICH guidelines Q2(R2) and ICH Q14

November 25, 2022 , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

by Giuliana Miglierini

The public consultation on the two draft guidelines ICH Q2(R2) on the validation of analytical procedures and ICH Q14 on analytical procedure development closed at the end of July 2022.The European Medicines Agency published in August two documents summarising comments received (ICH Q2(R2) and ICH Q14).

Many industrial organisations contributed to the consultation with their point of view on the two draft guidelines. In the next phase of the procedure (step 3 of the ICH process), comments will be reviewed by the ICH Q2(R2)/ICH Q14 Expert Working Group (EWG). We summarise for readers some of the main comments received from industrial stakeholders. A webinar organised byEIPG on the implications and opportunities of the revision of ICHQ2 and the ICHQ14 was presented by Dr Phil Borman, Senior Fellow & Director Product Quality at GSK on 15thJune 2022 (recording and slides are available at the webinars page of EIPG’s website).

Key principles from the EIPG’s webinar

During the webinar, Dr Borman gave a comprehensive picture of the process of Analytical Quality by Design (QbD). The systematic approach to method development starts with the identification of the predefined objectives (Analytical Target Profile, ATP). The understanding and control of the analytical procedure are at the core of the process, and they should be pursued according to principles of ICH Q8. Analytical QbD covers both the drug product (ICH Q8) and the active ingredient (Q11). This means that a similar framework to ICH Q8 and Q11 can be applied also for analytical procedures. The ATP is made up of the sum of performance characteristics, precision, range (including sensitivity), and bias/accuracy.

According to ICH Q2(R1), published in 1994, the objective of validation of an analytical procedure is to demonstrate its suitability for the intended scope. Revision of both guidelines started in 2019, based on a Concept paper published in 2018. ICH Q2(R2) covers the validation of the analytical protocols and reports, while ICH Q14 refers to the development of the analytical procedure and its lifecycle management.

Key features of the new drafts include the fact that no additional expectations / mandated requirements for pharmaceutical analytical scientists are present, the possible use of “enhanced approaches” and the clear link between performance characteristics and their related criteria and the validation study. The Q2(R2) guideline shall apply to both small molecules and biologics and includes the possibility to use prior knowledge (e.g., from development or previous validation) as a part of the validation exercise. Assay for the determination of robustness can be conducted, for example, during development. Other key features highlighted by Dr Borman include the possible use of Platform analytical procedures to reduce the number of validation tests and the possibility to use any type of calibration model (including multivariate calibration).

The expected benefits refer to the possibility to reduce the existing burden associated with post-approval changes to analytical procedures and the use of Established Conditions.

As Dr Borman explained, the ATP could form the basis of a Post Approval Change Management Protocol (PACMP), thus favouring the reporting of changes between technologies at a lower reporting category. A more performance driven and flexible approach to validation is expected following the entry into force of the new ICH Q2(R2) guideline. The selection of validation tests shall be based on the concrete objective of the analytical procedure.

Comments to ICH Q2(R2)

The overview of comments relative to the draft ICH Q2(R2) published by EMA consists of a 72-page document, divided into a first section containing general comments and a second focused on specific comments.

APIC, representing manufacturers of active ingredients and API intermediates, focused on the fact that “uncertainty is not part of the validation whereas it has a reality in practice and part of the discussion between laboratories”. The measurement of uncertainty is also considered linked to the Total analytical error (TAE), a concept that would not be adequately addressed in the guideline.

EFPIA, on behalf of the biopharmaceutical industry, asked for a better connection between the two guidelines ICH Q2 and Q14, starting from the alignment of the respective titles. Improved consistency in the use of some terms was also suggested (e.g. ‘performance criteria’). Improved clarity and greater flexibility should be applied to the concept of working and reportable ranges. The association also asked to provide more examples for multivariate analytical procedures using different models to facilitate the understanding of their validation and lifecycle management.

Medicines for Europe, representing manufacturers of generic and biosimilars, asked to provide a more specific methodology for reportable range validation. The association requested some clarification about the possibility of using the minimal requirements of the performance characteristics for the addendum method validation strategy.

The European Association of Nuclear Medicine (EANM) focused its intervention of radiopharmaceuticals, a class of substances that should be considered a special case and therefore be excluded from the scope of the guidance. The request assumes that other approaches different that those discussed may be applicable and “acceptable with appropriate science-based justification”. The same request also applies to the draft ICH Q14 guideline. The EANM contribution also highlighted aspects specific to radiopharmaceuticals that should be considered, including the strength of the radioactivity content, the unavailability of radioactive standards of the active substance, and the need of specific techniques for radioactivity determination. The suggestion is to refer to the specific guideline on the validation of analytical methods for radiopharmaceuticals jointly developed by the EANM and the EDQM.

According to the International Society for Pharmaceutical Engineering (ISPE), there are many sections of the draft Q2(R2) guideline that may pose challenges due to lack of alignment and fragmentation of contents. A revision of the structure is thus suggested, together with the harmonisation of terms with those listed in the Glossary. ISPE also highlighted the opportunity to better clarify the distinction between validation elements and recommended data applicable to multivariate analytical procedures vs traditional analytical methods.

The ECA Foundation/European QP Association reported a very critical position on the two draft guidelines, clearly stating that ICH Q2 and Q14 should integrate with one another. According to ECA, the corresponding US guideline “USP <1220> is far superior”. Many of the points reported above with respect to the general section of the overview are discussed in more deep detail within the part of the document listing specific comments.

Comments to ICH Q14

The same structure of the document also applies to the 54-page overview summarising the results of the consultation on ICH Q14 guideline.

According to the Plasma Protein Therapeutics Association (PPTA), representing manufacturers of plasma-derived and recombinant analog therapies, the draft would be too focused on chemical methods, with just a residual attention to biological methods.

APIC asked for improved discussion of the capability (and uncertainty) of the method of analysis, a fundamental parameter to assess its appropriateness for the intended use within the defined specification range. According to the association, more specific reference should be made in relation to development data that can be/cannot be used as validation data.

ISPE suggested adopting a more detailed title for the guideline; something similar has also been suggested by EFPIA. ISPE also addressed the issue of reproducibility, that may be influenced by external factors across multiple laboratories. Multivariate analysis is also discussed, suggesting adopting additional requirements for the multivariate elements while maintaining the same approach to other analytical procedures.

EFPIA would prefer to avoid the use of the term “minimal” in favour of other expressions denoted by a less negative connotation (e.g., traditional, suitable/historic, classical, fit for purpose) with reference to the validation approach. The availability of training case studies is considered important to support the alignment between industry and regulatory agencies on expectations for regulatory change management, especially with reference to multivariate models. EFPIA asked that the paragraph discussing the relationship between ICH Q2 and Q14 should not address what should be submitted to regulatory agencies. Discussion of OMICS methods used in quality control of complex biological products should be included in the annexes.

ISPE asked to avoid reference to geographic regions, as the final goal is to reach harmonisation. A clearer statement of the scope would be advisable (a possible example is provided), as well as a better linkage to the ICH Q12 guideline on pharmaceutical product lifecycle management.

Specific comments include the suggestion of the PPTA to define all acronyms at first use in text and to include them in the Glossary. According to Medicines for Europe, it would be advisable to add characterisational assays (other than release/stability) for biosimilars. Furthermore, the scope of the guideline should focus on the risk assessment and availability of the analytical knowledge needed to select the most appropriate method for a specific application. Activities deemed to the submission of the regulatory CTD dossier should remain confined to the complementaryQ2 guideline.


What happens after IP loss of protection

November 11, 2022 , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

by Giuliana Miglierini

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

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

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

The main trends of the past six years

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

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

Forms of IP protection

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

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

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

Access and competition

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

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

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

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

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

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

The importance of intellectual property rights

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

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

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

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


Trends in Drug delivery and Formulation

August 5, 2022 , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

by Giuliana Miglierini

According to the 2021 Global Drug Delivery & Formulation Report, signed by Kurt Sedo, Vice President Operations, PharmaCircle LLC and published in a three-part series on Drug Development & Delivery, the Covid-19 pandemic seems to have had little impact on the regulatory approvals of new dosage forms and formulations. A positive sign from the pharmaceutical ecosystem, considering the difficulty to maintain normal operative conditions, the issues with international supply chains and the many hurdles to regulatory activities posed by the emergency.

According to Kurt Sedo, products newly approved by the FDA and based on new chemical entities have been the less affected, as they reflect a larger benefit for patients. On the other hand, are generics, together with new dosage forms and new formulations. Simple dosage forms continue to represent the great part of new approvals, while biologics prevail in terms of NCEs for injection.

The FDA approved in 2021 a total of 31 new products under the Biologics Licence Application (BLA) procedure, slightly more than in the previous two years. The increase is mainly linked to the higher number of vaccines and cell and gene therapies, while approval of biologic medicines maintained stable.

Approval trends by category of product

A marked decrease characterised Abbreviated New Drug Approvals (ANDA) (627 in 2021, vs 903 in 2020 and 962 in 2019). New Drug Applications (NDA) also slightly decreased. Analysing this category by type of product, the decrement is marked for new molecular entities and new dosage forms, while an opposite trend can be observed for new active ingredients and new formulations/new manufacturers.

As for administration route, the report indicates a marked prevalence of injection in all geographic areas (US 55%, EU 36%, JP 59%); oral drugs also continue to be highly represented. The author warns about the difficulty to reliably interpret the figures for European and Japanese approvals, as “The European Medicines Agency (EMA) approvals relate only to specific classes of pharmaceutical products and don’t capture the full range of products. The Japanese Pharmaceutical Medical and Medical Devices Agency (PMDA) published approvals are hard to access and properly assess”.

Looking more in detail at the injection route of administration, intravenous injectable products remain the leading category (US 39%, EU 38%, JP 38%), followed by subcutaneous injection. Simple solutions with or without a dedicated delivery device were the most commonly approved injectable simple dosage forms in 2021. Tablets and capsules remained the favoured oral dosage forms, while granules and pellets are especially represented in paediatric formulations.

Small molecules are the more represented category of active ingredients (US 64%, EU 74%, JP 52%), followed by antibodies and peptides; this last category of API offer the advantage of a possible formulation as non-injectable dosage form.

A deeper insight on the main approvals

Part 2 of the series debates the main products approved in 2021. The trend hints to a higher interest towards products and technologies targeted to wider patient populations and more diverse applications. According to Sedo, mRNA and gene therapy platforms have decrease their appealing due to need of validation for applications different than vaccines in the first case and safety and durability concerns in the latter.

Skytrofa (Ascendis Pharma) is a pegylated form of the growth hormone lonapegsomatropin-tcgd for injection or subcutaneous administration, using the dedicated rechargeable and reusable auto-injector. The weekly administration is the main advantage, overruling the need of daily injections.

Invega Hafyera (Janssen Pharmaceuticals), containing paliperidone palmitate as the active ingredient, has been approved in the US to treat adult schizophrenia by intramuscular injection every 6 months. Despite the parent molecule has already lost its exclusivity, Kurt Sedo highlights the remarkable lifecycle management of the Invega family of products, which allowed Janssen to maintain significant revenues for almost 20 years.

Tyrvaya (Oyster Point Pharma) is indicated to treat dry eye using the nasal delivery route. The formulation containing varenicline is administered using the Aptar’s CPS Spray Pump, representing the first approval for this type of technology platform. The possibility to overcome issues in treating ocular conditions connected to the difficulty many patients may experience with the administration of classical ocular drops is the main point of innovation.

Acuvue Theravision (Johnson & Johnson Vision Care) are contact lenses firstly approved in Japan and containing ketotifen to treat allergic conjunctivitis. In this case too, the approach may be replicated to administer other types of drugs in the eye. Issues may be represented by the difficulty of patients in using contact lenses and the need to stabilise the active ingredient to prevent leaching.

Cabenuva Kit (ViiV Healthcare) contains the combination cabotegravir – rilpivirine to treat HIV infection. Firstly, approved in Canada, it is administered monthly by intramuscular injection. Long-acting formulations can prove interesting to overcome compliance issues which may result in serious consequences for patients, as already proved in the case of hepatitis.

The monoclonal antibody Susvimo (anibizumab; Genentech) is formulated as a refillable ocular implant to treat wet acute macular degeneration. After implantation, the intravitreal injections using the Port Delivery System (PDS) occur every 6 months.

Other relevant technologies mentioned among new 2021 approvals include the Medicago Virus Like Particles (VLP) technology, which uses tobacco-related plants as bioreactors to produce noninfectious VLP that mimic the target virus, and LICA technology (Ionis), based on Ligand Conjugated Antisense (LICA) to favour the interaction of ligands and their respective receptors.

The Denali Transport Vehicle (TV) platform uses specific antibodies, enzymes, oligonucleotides, or proteins to link to the transferrin receptor of the blood vessel wall in the brain, thus providing a way to pass the blood-brain barrier by endocytosis.

MedRing (Ligalli) is a smart vaginal insert containing a miniaturised liquid formulation drug container with pump, battery, antenna, electronics, and sensors to monitor various biometric parameters (e.g. glucose or ovulation status).

Q-Sphera (Midatech Pharma) provides a bioencapsulation process using a microfluidic device to obtain discrete droplets without use of surfactants, toxic solvents, biphasic mixtures, shear, or heat forces.

Products in the pipelines

Part 3 of the series addresses the expectations for new approvals of products still in the pipelines The trend shows a higher percentage of early-stage products (research and pre-clinical phases), which is attributed to the higher interest of investors towards new companies able to fill the pipelines with early stage projects. The impact of Covid-19 has proved to be more relevant on projects at the clinical stage.

Small molecules still represent the main focus of development (59% in 2021/22), even if a drop has been observed from values recorded in 2015/16 (66%). Biological products may pose issues due to their highly speculative nature, suggests the report, while oligonucleotide and RNA products still represent only the 2% of the total in the pipelines; a more mature technology are antibodies (12%).

Cancer continues to be the leading therapeutic area of development, followed by infectious diseases and drugs to treat the central nervous system. The report indicates a very high attrition rate for anti-infectives under development, while many anti-cancer therapeutics in the pipelines may be me-too products pursuing validated therapeutic mechanisms. As seen above, injectable formulations maintain the leading position also for products under development (52%), followed by oral formulations.


A study on medicines shortages from the European Commission

December 24, 2021 , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

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.