guidelines Archives - European Industrial Pharmacists Group (EIPG)

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

Environmental sustainability: the EIPG perspective


Piero Iamartino Although the impact of medicines on the environment has been highlighted since the 70s of the last century with the emergence of the first reports of pollution in surface waters, it is only since the beginning of the Read more

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

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

by Giulianna Miglierini

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

The DNSH and the European Green Deal

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The ongoing debate

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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.


Webinar: Implications and Opportunities of ICHQ2(R2) and ICHQ14

, , , , , , , , ,

The next EIPG webinar will be held in conjunction with PIER and University College Cork on Wednesday 15th June 2022 (17.00 CEST), on the implications and opportunities of the revision of ICHQ2 (on validation of analytical procedures) and the ICHQ14 (on analytical procedure development). Our speaker Phil Borman, Director and Senior Fellow at GlaxoSmithKline, pioneered the adaptation of Quality by Design principles to analytical procedures and currently co-leads the EFPIA ICH Q2(R2) and ICH Q14 guidance on Quality by Design, will explain why these guidelines are being developed and will highlight their implications and opportunities.

The revision of ICHQ2(R1): Validation of Analytical Procedures and the development of ICHQ14: Analytical Procedure Development reached the key ICH milestone of Step 2 publication for public consultation in March 2022. The combined topic Q2(R2)/Q14 represents an opportunity to provide guidance on how to apply enhanced development approaches (‘Quality by Design’) to analytical procedures and how to use the knowledge obtained to support routine use of procedures. Q2(R2)/Q14 will also have the potential to facilitate the selection or identification of development approaches that will reduce the risk incurred by post-approval changes to analytical procedures discussed in ICHQ12: Pharmaceutical product Lifecycle Management. This webinar will explain why these guidelines are being developed as well as highlighting the implications and opportunities.

This is an event for members of EIPG member organisations. Contact your national association EIPG representative for further information.


Steps towards the final approval of the IP action plan

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

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.


Draft guidelines, open for consultation

, , , , , , ,

ICH guideline Q13 on continuous manufacturing of drug substances and drug products

This guideline describes scientific and regulatory considerations for the development, implementation, operation, and lifecycle management of continuous manufacturing (CM). Building on existing ICH Quality guidelines, this guideline provides clarification on CM concepts, describes scientific approaches, and presents regulatory considerations specific to CM of drug substances and drug products.

This guideline applies to CM of drug substances and drug products for chemical entities and therapeutic proteins. The principles described in this guideline may also apply to other biological/biotechnological entities.
It is applicable to CM for new products (e.g., new drugs, generic drugs, biosimilars) and the conversion of batch manufacturing to CM for existing products.

Consultation dates: 29/07/2021 to 20/12/2021
Open Consultation file (Click here)


Guideline on core SmPC, Labelling and Package Leaflet for advanced therapy medicinal products (ATMPs) containing genetically modified cells.

This guideline describes the information to be included in the summary of products characteristics (SmPC), labelling and package leaflet for advanced therapy medicinal products (ATMPs) containing genetically modified cells. This applies to allogeneic or autologous, including viral vector modified and genome edited cells.

Consultation dates: 30/07/2021 to 31/10/2021
Open Consultation file (Click here)