impact assessment 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

European Council’s recommendations on R&I

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

by Giuliana Miglierini

The end of 2023 saw some steps forward to better support the European framework on Research and Innovation (R&I). The Council of Europe approved on 8 December 2023 its conclusions on the impact of research and innovation (R&I) in policymaking. The Council also reached a political agreement on a recommendation of a framework supporting researchers and research careers in the EU. R&I is strategically important as one of the main tools to make Europe more attractive to young talents and to create a open and sustainable European labour market for researchers, innovators and entrepreneurs. We summarise the main features of the Council’s decisions.

How to support the European R&I

The Council conclusions were proposed by the Spanish Presidency (Ministry of Science, Innovation and Universities), and they represent one of its main priorities in the area of research and innovation.

Three mutually complementary dimensions have been identified as fundamental to the success of European R&I. Science plays an important role to reinforce the political process of decision making, which in turn is key to improve life conditions of EU citizens and strengthen democracy. To this instance, the inclusion of scientific evidence and knowledge in the regulatory process and a better coherence of policy initiatives in different areas are deemed important by the Council. According to the conclusions, such an inclusion should help to improve the response capacity of the EU and member states against both structural and cyclical or circumstantial challenges. The document also recalls the ‘Science for Policy’ concept and the EU’s long-standing tradition of relying on science and evidence-based knowledge in all disciplines to support decision-making.

The availability of strong R&I ecosystems in all member states is deemed fundamental to sustain EU’s competitiveness and should be supported among others by the implementation of open-science policies and new technologies and innovation, including social innovation.

The best available scientific evidence should also always be included in impact assessments, so to improve citizens’ trust in public action, as well as the added value of the legislation. To this instance, a rigorous methodological framework would be needed, even though uncertainties are still possible. Transparent and responsible communication would support a better dissemination of scientific outcomes at all levels. The Council also recommended the mapping of the existing practices of knowledge valorisation in policymaking and the national institutional scientific advisory systems and mechanisms. The Commission should also extend the use of the Technical Support Instrument and the Policy Support Facility to support public policymakers and strengthen public structures for scientific advice.

Local and regional innovation ecosystems and ERA’s R&I

R&I may also represent a boost to enhance cooperation and territorial cohesion, reduce R&I fragmentation and disparities between and within member states and to sustain the creation of regional and local innovation ecosystems. Their design should aim to build synergies between cohesion policy and R&I funds. To this regard, according to the Council the R&I framework programme (i.e. Horizon Europe) should continue to drive research excellence in all member states.

Regional centres of excellence may represent a particularly interesting tool to support the regional dimension, with a special attention to the less innovative ecosystems. This goal is part of the New European Innovation Agenda (NEIA), as well as the Regional Innovation Valleys and the pilot project of the Partnerships for Regional Innovation. Cross-border cooperation (especially between less and more innovative member states and regions) may also be key to support better economic, social, and territorial cohesion and reinforce R&I efficiency.

The third dimension is referred to the policy impact of the Recovery and Resilience Facility (RRF) on the design of R&I policies in the European Research Area (ERA) after the pandemic crisis. This last occurrence had a positive effect in enabling many actions at the national level, allowing for targeted investments and reforms. The new ERA should be based on trust, shared responsibilities, and societal engagement and diversity.

Many sectoral and R&I policies experienced a joint approach to their improvement, including the additionality of the Facility with other EU funds. The Council invited the Commission to run a separate study that complements the mid-term evaluation of the RRF, expected by February 2024. The exercise should consider the differences between the RRF and other EU funds.

The reform of research careers

The political agreement reached by the Council on the proposal of a European framework to attract and retain research, innovation and entrepreneurial talents in Europe updates the R1- R4 profiles for researchers, introduced in 2011. It also introduces the European Charter for Re-searchers (ECR), a revision of the 2005 ECR and the Code of Conduct for the Recruitment of Researchers.

The revised definition of researcher and the related research activities are expected to widen career options, thus making European R&I framework more attractive for both internal and foreign talents.

According to the proposal, the term “researcher” would identify professionals engaged in the conception or creation of new knowledge, active in basic or applied research, experimental development, operating research equipment, or project management within any sector of the economy or society (i.e.academia, business, governmental laboratories and the public administration, and the non-profit sector). Careers in research management are also included in the definition.

Four different profiles have been identified to describe the career steps of researchers. First Stage Researcher (R1) are doing research under supervision up to the point of a PhD or equivalent level of competence and experience. Recognised Researcher (R2) hold a PhD or equivalent level of competence and experience but are not yet fully independent in their ability to develop their own research, attract funding, or lead a research group. R1 and R2 refer to researchers at the beginning of their career in science. R3 and R4 refer to senior researchers. Established Re-searcher (R3) holds a PhD or equivalent level of competence and possesses sufficient experience to independently develop and run their own research. Leading Researcher (R4) are recognised as leading their research field by their peers.

The Council recommends that these profiles are referenced to by members states in all vacancies specifically addressed to researchers. Member states are also called to promote equal esteem and reward of the different paths of research careers, regardless of the sector of employment or activity. Appropriate measuring should support comparison of careers across member states, sectors, and institutions, so enabling their full interoperability. The Council recommendation also aims to reduce the precarity of research labour by promoting adequate social protection measures. Inter-sectoral mobility is also encouraged, as well as better equality in research careers, as a tool to respond to the request of highly skilled talents. The Council expects that all organisations employing or providing funding for researchers would provide endorsement of the new “European Charter for Researchers”.


Reactions to the proposed ban of PFAS

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

by Giuliana Miglierini

A proposal to ban around 10,000 per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) was submitted in January 2023 to the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) by authorities of Germany, Denmark, the Netherlands, Norway, and Sweden. The proposal was published on ECHA website on 7 February 2023.

The focus is the so-called “forever chemicals”, i.e. very high persistence PFAS typically characterised by bioaccumulation (also in plants), great mobility and a long range transport potential, and potential endocrine activity.

This landmark proposal by the five authorities supports the ambitions of the EU’s Chemicals Strategy and the Zero Pollution action plan. While the evaluation of such a broad proposal with thousands of substances, and many uses, will be challenging, we are ready.”, said Peter van der Zandt, ECHA’s Director for Risk Assessment.

The proposal was open to public consultation on 22 March 2023, giving rise to the collection of 5,600 comments. Opinions will be issued by ECHA’s scientific committees for Risk Assessment (RAC) and for Socio-Economic Analysis (SEAC), to be then forwarded to the EU Commission for final decision.

 The current role of PFAS

PFAS are characterised by the presence of alkyl groups in which many or all the hydrogen atoms have been replaced with fluorine. The main carbon chain of these substances may have different lengths, from small molecules to long chain PFAS and polymers, and may carry a very wide variety of other functional groups. The strength of the carbon-fluorine bond is the root cause of PFAS persistence, leading to these substances remaining in the environment for decades to centuries.

Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances are currently used in many different industrial sectors, thanks to their useful technical properties. Among others, PFAS can be used to repel water, oil and dirt from surfaces, and is characterised by a high durability under extreme conditions of temperature, pressure, radiation, and chemicals. PFAS also present electrical and thermal insulation properties.

The main features of the restriction proposal

According to the authorities that submitted the proposal, around 4.4 million tons of PFAS would end up in the environment over the next 30 years in the case of no action. Ban would refer to manufacture, placing on the market and use as such, as constituent in other substances or in mixture as well as in articles.

Two options for restriction have been considered, a full ban or specific derogations for certain industries, based on the analyses of alternatives, efforts put in place for switching to them, and socio-economic considerations. The ban would be effective above a set concentration limit; a transition period of 18 months should occur between final adoption and entry into force. Use-specific, time-limited derogation might refer, for example, to a 5-year period in the case of food contact materials for industrial food and feed production (as alternatives are already under development, but are not yet available to entry into force), or to a 12 years for implantable medical devices (for which identification, development and certification of alternatives is still needed).

During the public consultation phase, comments were received from more than 4,400 organisations, companies and individuals, to be reviewed by both the RAC and SEAC committees and the five proposing countries. Sweden, Germany and Japan are the countries that contributed the higher number of comments, well in advance of Belgium, China, Italy and the US. Companies provided more than the half of the comments (58,7%), followed by individuals (27,3%), and industrial or trade associations (9,8%). The full list of entities participating to the consultation is available at the consultation webpage.

EFPIA response to ECHA’s consultation

The European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industries and Associations (EFPIA) contributed to the consultation with a detailed document. Another joint ISPE-EFPIA document particularly addressed the use of fluoropolymers and fluoroelastomers in medicinal product manufacturing facilities.

While we support the need to restrict certain PFAS, we need to find the right approach to ensure the continued manufacturing and availability of medicines in Europe. A total ban would see medicines’ manufacturing in the EU grind to a halt in under three years. It would also jeopardise the production of all pharmaceutical substances in Europe and would conflict with the EU’s strategy of reducing dependency on nations outside of the EEA in the event of shortages or pandemics.”, said EFPIA’s director general, Nathalie Moll.

EFPIA’s consultation documents highlights the many different uses of PFAS in the pharmaceutical industry, ranging from active pharmaceutical ingredients (API) falling within the definition of PFAS used in the proposal, to building blocks and raw materials used within chemical synthesis of PFAS and non-PFAS medicines. Other reagents and equipment might also fall within the scope of the ban, as well as packaging materials or combination products such as pre-filled syringes. The ban would also affect the manufacturing process, where PFAS materials are used in a wide variety of applications.

It might thus result in the disappearance from the market of a large number of important medicines, warns EFPIA, due to the unavailability of replacement materials, and the time required to obtain regulatory re-approval of alternatives. The supply chain of pharmaceuticals would be also impacted at many stages, thus possibly exacerbating shortages.

In its analysis, EFPIA highlights how some PFAS are considered of low concern by the OECD, and in particular “those used in actual medicines have no or low identified risk through medicines risk benefit or environmental risk assessments”.

A patient access impact analysis was also jointly developed by the involved industrial associations (AESGP, EFCG, EFPIA, Medicines for Europe and Vaccines Europe), showing that the current proposal would lead to at least 47,677 global marketing authorisations being affected by the ban. More than 600 medicines from the WHO Essential Medicines List would be at risk; restrictions would greatly impact also the European Member State’s “Critical Medicines lists”.

EFPIA submitted also a socio-economic assessment of the proposal, according to which a broad restriction of PFAS used in the production of human medicines would have disproportionate negative impacts on the European economy and society. “Without additional derogations, the entire pharmaceutical industry would no longer be able to manufacture active pharmaceutical ingredients (APIs) (whether classified as PFAS or non-PFAS APIs) or associated medicinal products in the EEA”, writes EFPIA, resulting in APIs production to necessarily move out of the European Economic Area.

The position of the medical device sector

MedTech Europe also published a position paper on the PFAS restriction proposal and called fora realistic transition pathway to non-PFAS alternatives that are both reliable and feasible for medical technologies (including their manufacturing and supply chain) to avoid shortages of medical technologies for patients and practitioners”.

The position paper presents many PFAS use cases in the field of medical devices, together with the criticalities posed by the proposed transition. In particular, broad derogations should be considered to allow sufficient time to first “identify all PFAS uses in medical technologies and to subsequently move to alternatives where these are proven to be technically viable, available besides in conformity with the sector-specific MD and IVD Regulations so as fit for the intended purpose”. In this case too, the need to manage complex supply chains would require a realistic timeline in order to address dependencies, and long development timelines and steps to ensure compliance with the sectorial legislation.


EC Communication (part 2): a Critical Medicines Alliance to support European pharma supply chain

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

by Giuliana Miglierini

After last week’s examination of the first part of the Commission’s Communication, specifically targeted to short-term actions to prevent and mitigate critical medicine shortages, in this second post we will address the announced mid- and long-term structural measures, focused on the creation of the Critical Medicines Alliance, the diversification of supply chains and the role of international partnerships.

The Critical Medicines Alliance

The second part of the Commission’s Communication details the structural measures to strengthen the secure supply of pharmaceuticals in the EU, with particular reference to critical medicines. An objective that, according to the Commission, may require the development of new pieces of legislation, such as the EU Critical Medicines Act. To this instance, the preparatory study should be launched by the end of 2023, and followed by the impact assessment.

In the meantime, the improved coordination of the industrial approach to the management of shortages in the EU should be pursued by the Critical Medicines Alliance, to be created in early 2024. The Alliance will bring together all involved stakeholders; its activities should start from a shared analysis of vulnerabilities in the supply chain of the critical medicines on the Union list (i.e over-dependency on a limited number of external suppliers, limited diversification possibilities, limited production capacities, etc).

The result of this exercise should be the identification of useful tools to address vulnerabilities of a limited number of critical medicines with the highest risk of shortages and impact on healthcare systems. To this regard, several lines of actions are identified in the Communication, starting from the issuing of a dedicated guidance and common criteria for the coordinated procurement of critical medicines (e.g. green production and prioritisation of supplies in Euro-pe at times of critical shortages). A better quantification of demand and the consequent possibility to compensate and incentivise industry for its effort in these directions are other expected outcomes.

Medium-term contractual incentives are proposed as a tool to improve predictability of supply and to attract new manufacturing investments in Europe, together with the use of capacity reservation contracts modelled on EU FABs. These last instruments were launched by the HERA Authority during the pandemic in order to reserve manufacturing capacities for vaccines and obtain a priority right for their manufacturing in case of a future public health emergency.

The second line of action of the Alliance would address the diversification of global supply chains for critical medicines, including the identification of priority countries to be involved in strategic partnerships on the security of supply (see also below).

The third pillar should see the Alliance involved in the coordination and harmonisation of efforts to identify security of supply needs for critical medicines, on the basis of the above-mentioned identified vulnerabilities. Actions cited by the Communication, such as the Services of General Economic Interest (SGEI) coordinated at the EU level, should be compatible with the state aid framework. The Alliance may also represent the dedicated location where member states may better discuss the possibility of a new Important Project of Common European Interest (IPCEI) focusing on sustainable manufacturing of critical medicines (including off patent medicines).

Stockpiling, skills and financial support

EU stockpiling of critical medicines is another area of activity of the Critical Medicines Alliance. The goal is to overcome current limitations typical of national stockpile programmes; the development of a common strategic approach and a Joint Action on stockpiling has been announced for the first half of 2024, based on the previously mentioned vulnerability analysis and on the experience of the Union Civil Protection Mechanism (UCPM, that will continue to be part of the EU approach) and the rescEU stockpile.

The Alliance should also address the need for new and updated skills to work in the pharmaceutical sector, so to cope with the increasing impact of digitalisation, the evolution of the regulatory environment and the green transition. Pharmacists are cited in the Communication, as their curricula could be easily adjusted to accommodate education and training on new skills. Attention should be paid to increasing STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics) graduates. A Pact for Skills is the measure identified to actively involve key actors in educational and training activities aimed to fill industry skills gaps.

The Alliance would also play a significant role in better leverage and align EU and national funding: a goal deemed important in order to support improved long-term investment predictability for the private sector, and to avoid duplication of efforts. Among other tools cited by the Communication to reach it, the proposed Strategic Technologies for Europe Platform (STEP) is also inclusive of pharmaceuticals, biotechnologies and medical technologies. The creation of a Sovereignty Seal to promote synergies amongst existing programmes, and the Technical Support Instrument to enhance the administrative capacity of member states in managing shortages and producing critical medicines are among other proposed tools.

Diversification of supply chains

A second, fundamental line of action identified by the Commission addresses how to better diversify the complex, global pharmaceutical supply chain, also by means of new international partnerships with third countries. According to the Communication, the EU industry needs to have access to a broad range of essential inputs; to this regard, new strategic partnerships with third countries for production of critical medicines and active ingredients should be based on concrete actions of mutual interest.

The EU has 42 preferential trade agreements in place with 74 different trading partners, and a new one is under negotiation with India. The Commission also recalled the importance of bilateral meetings with China on issues affecting access to medicines supply chains, and of the dialogue with Latin America.

An improved regulatory convergence is another main objective of the planned actions at the international level, so to increase GMP compliance of medicinal products marketed in the EU and manufactured by extra-UE partners. To this instance, the Communication mentions the work of international bodies such as the ICH (International Council for Harmonisation of Technical Requirements for Pharmaceuticals for Human Use) and ICMRA (International Coalition of Medicines Regulatory Authorities) for the harmonisation of standards for pharmaceuticals, and the WHO support to improved regulatory convergence. Many free trade and mutual recognition agreements (MRAs) signed by the EU also contain this type of obligation, and in some cases the sharing of non-sensitive market knowledge to anticipate possible problems too.

A new network of international partners should be created by the Commission within a year, in conformity with applicable state aid and antitrust rules. The network activities would focus on crisis preparedness and supply diversification. The Communication mentions also different international initiatives already in place, such as the Global Gateway to support local manufacturing of health products and announced another Team European Initiative in Africa on health security and pandemic preparedness and response. Another ongoing initiative is the EU-Latin America and Caribbean Partnership on manufacturing and access to vaccines, medicines and health technologies. The EU will also continue to support the provision of critical medicines in humanitarian contexts.


EU’s Industrial Forum, the future of advanced manufacturing technologies

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

by Giuliana Miglierini

The expert group “Industrial Forum” is a multistakeholder body created by the European Commission to support the implementation of the Industrial Strategy launched in March 2020 and its following update of May 2021. Its members include Member States authorities, NGOs, industrial representations, research institutions and social partners representing different industrial ecosystems.

Its recently published report is the result of the structured dialogue among members on how to accelerate the deployment of advanced manufacturing technologies (AMTs) across the European industry. Among members which participated in the drafting of the document is also EuropaBio on behalf of the biomanufacturing industry.

Europe is leader in advanced manufacturing

Advanced manufacturing is based on the integration and convergence of the most advanced industrial technologies, i.e. automation, robotics, artificial intelligence and digitally connected solutions. New processes, new products as well as new business models based on this new approach are deemed to represent a fundamental competitive factor in the next few years.

Europe is currently well position in the ranking on “future of production” readiness, with 18 out of 25 countries considered by the World Economic Forum to be leading the change in manufacturing. Despite this, according to the report many efforts are still needed to accelerate the implementation of advanced manufacturing technologies in the EU, so not to be superseded by other fast-evolving competitors.

In order to achieve this challenging goal, the Industrial Forum identified seven different areas of attention, each of which is addressed by specific recommendations based on a SWOT analysis.

The seven areas of recommendation

The transition to new manufacturing models should, first of all, meet the EU sustainability goals established by the European Green Deal: the “net-zero industry” plan for renewables and industrial efficiency technologies is confirmed as a priority action, together with the expansion of the use of REPowerEU. The Commission is working on new energy savings directives, which should be timely implemented. Circularity of manufacturing processes and products is another main goal of EU’s industrial policies, to be supported by a set of new fit-for-purpose rules. A more rapid uptake of advanced manufacturing technologies should also be supported by both the availability of specific public procurement guidance and a targeted communication of the environmental benefits of European clean technologies.

The second area of action addresses how to improve access to capital, a key factor in ensuring the timely implementation of advanced manufacturing technologies. This may include a better use of public investment, as well as a cautious application of state aid instruments specifically targeted at later stages in the innovation and deployment process. The potential of these new technologies for sustainability should also be recognised within the upcoming EU Taxonomy de-legated acts.

The resilience of supply chains could be tackled by the rapid implementation of AMTs. In order to achieve this goal, the Industrial Forum highlighted the need for workable and proportionate rules on Due Diligence. No less important is the negotiation and activation of new Free Trade Agreements with third countries (such as the EU-Mercosur FTA). A critical area refers to the improvement of EU semiconductor capacity. According to the report, incentives and funding aimed to increase the supply chain resilience should be exempt from directing specific outcomes. The European institutions should also better support the local and regional industrial supply chains. Secure access to critical raw materials should be pursued by leveraging the trade policy.

The building of an EU Single Market is a main goal of the European Commission, also in the pharmaceutical field. Its freedoms should be safeguarded by narrowing down the scope of the Single Market Emergency Instrument, while promoting mitigation measures for advanced manufacturing. The Industrial Forum also recommends the availability of a single platform to provide companies with all the needed information to expand and/or export. Furthermore, a Single Market test should be included in the impact assessments of national laws to minimise the occurrence of gold-plating phenomena. New standards for AMTs would also be needed, an area which according to the Industrial Forum should conjugate an enhanced flexibility in standardisation requests and timely delivery in standard setting. Digital product standardisation should also be promoted, and adhesion to the New Legislative Framework should be ensured.

Data is a fundamental asset of the new economy. Recommendations in this area include supporting existing initiatives to create a strong European manufacturing data space, as well as ad-dressing the protection of both personal data and intellectual property rights and trade secrets. As artificial intelligence (AI) will assume an increasingly relevant role in future advanced manufacturing processes, the Forum recommends the development of clear, focused criteria on high-risk AI, while avoiding unnecessary regulation of industrial AI.

The availability of data should be pursued through the identification of a method for data collection in the advanced manufacturing category. It would also be important to generate trusted data sets at the European level for advanced manufacturing deployment, global competitive position, and economic / environmental / societal gains.

Many new skills will be needed in the next few years to handle the expansion of AMTs. To this instance, the Industrial Forum highlighted the importance to promote the harmonisation of Vocational Education and Training (VET) practices and qualification systems and to encourage women and girls to study STEM subjects and working in manufacturing. Other recommendations re-fer to the possibility of developing a Pact for Skills partnership and the proposal of a Blueprint Alliance for Advanced Manufacturing. A better entrepreneurial culture in Europe should also be promoted, as well as capitalisation on European creative industries.

Examples of biomanufacturing

Weaknesses to biomanufacturing identified by the Industrial Forum include the fact that it is still an emerging production process compared to chemical manufacturing. The report also mentions existing regulatory barriers, mainly linked to a process rather than product approvals pathway. Furthermore, significant investments in biomanufacturing are primarily located outside Europe. Possible risks identified by the report also refer to biomanufacturing being excluded or overlooked in key policymaking e.g. taxonomy supporting biomanufacture and sustainable financing.

The report includes two examples of AMTs linked to the health and agrifood sector. Chimeric antigen receptor T cells (CAR-T) represent one of the main areas of innovation in cancer treatment over the past two decades, in which the patient’s immune cells are engineered to produce the final immunotherapy. Many pharmaceutical companies are building specialised manufacturing facilities for CAR-T therapies within Europe, a biomanufacturing process which is highly complex and patient-specific, and requires long term investments, skills development, and integration into the European Union industrial base.

Biomanufacturing may also be applied to the production of vitamin B2 (riboflavin), that multi-step chemical synthesis is complex, requires hazardous agents and has low yields (~60%). Biotechnologies allow for the one-step production of vitamin B2, starting from vegetables as carbon sources and using a genetically modified bacterium (Bacillus subtilis) or fungus (Ashbya gossypii).