Reform of pharma legislation: the debate on regulatory data protection

April 1, 2024

additional costs, advanced therapies, advisory board, alternative incentive mechanisms, amendments, Annex, biosimilars, citizens rights, clawback-type mechanisms, clinical trials, Committee for Legal Affairs, complex therapeutics, crisis modes, cross-border effect, definition of crisis, distortion of competition, EFPIA, elephant in the room, emergency modes, ESIP, European Commission, European Parliament, European Social Insurance Platform, evidence-based comparator, extension periods, extremely high prices of medicines, generic competition, generics, incentives, information, intellectual property rights, IP legislation, know-how, last resort instance, launch in all EU markets, List Prices, Medicines for Europe, Nathalie Moll, net financial impact, new antibiotics, new chemical substances, new indication, observers, orphan diseases, prescription status, privileges, proportionate measures, RDP, RDP attractiveness, regulation, Regulatory Data Protection, remuneration, renewed social contract, repurposing, revision of the pharmaceutical legislation, rights-holders, SPC legislations, systemic problem, TEV, trade secrets, Transferable exclusivity vouchers, Union compulsory licences, unmet medical needs, voluntary license, Yannis Natsis

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 risk of a biosimilar void in Europe

December 1, 2023

ADC, antibody-drug conjugates, ATMPs, biologic medicines, biologics, biosimilar pipeline, biosimilar void, biosimilars, combination medicines, competition, development costs, high-sales products, horizon scanning, incentives, IP protection, IQVIA, LoE, loss of exclusivity, low-sales products, manufacturing, market, market opportunity, non-orphan biologics, oncology, one-off medicines, originator, orphan biologics, regulatory guidance, reimbursement rate

by Giuliana Miglierini

The undergoing revision of the pharmaceutical legislation aims, among others, to redefine data protection to better support competitiveness of generics and biosimilars and to favour the timely access of patients to treatments.

While the innovator pharma industry is claiming the proposed reform would reduce the attractiveness of Europe for R&D activities, a recent report from Iqvia analysed the status of biosimilar competition. According to the document, not all biological medicines experiencing loss of exclusivity (LoE) in the next decade would automatically face competition by the corresponding biosimilars. This would result in the creation of a “biosimilar void” on the market, with many originators losing protection without seeing the parallel development of their biosimilar versions.

Competition is not guaranteed

“Biosimilar competition is not necessarily guaranteed, and emerging dynamics pose a risk to conventional notions of medicines lifecycles”, states the report since its very beginning. The analysis refers to biological medicines that will lose protection in the period 2023-2032.

Despite the approx. 8-fold expected increase in LoE opportunity by value between 2012 and 2032 (from €4.4 billion to €32.2 bln, as result of loss of exclusivity for 110 biological medicines), data show a declining trend for years 2021-2023 (€4.3 bln). According to Iqvia, more than a half (55%) of biologics with LoE in the period 2023-2027 might experience the lack of a biosimilar in development.

The report highlights five areas of common perception to be addressed to better define the issue. The increasing complexity of many biological medicines coupled to new barriers to entry is one of the factors making the development of biosimilars interesting only for products referred to originators with large market shares. According to Iqvia, 27% of the 26 high-sales products that will reach loss of exclusivity by the end of 2032 do not have yet a biosimilar candidate in development in Europe (vs 45% at the global level), corresponding to a potential loss of approx. €8 bln market opportunity. The number of biosimilar candidates in the pipeline for high-sales biologics is also expected to decrease from 2027 onwards.

Regulatory hurdles, therapeutic classes, and disease indication are expected to play a greater role in guiding decisions on biosimilar development, indicates the report. The attractiveness of the European market should also be considered. Oncology will remain the more interesting area, with 44% of all candidates in early to late development for LoE events occurring between 2023 and 2027. Immunology and ophthalmology are other therapeutic areas that might experience growing competition.

The current barriers to biosimilar development

According to Iqvia, the main constraints limiting the decision on biosimilars development are represented by cost and time. In the oncology area, for example, high costs have to be considered to purchase the reference comparator biologic medicine, and large patients populations are required to demonstrate relevant clinical endpoints. New therapeutic classes, i.e., PD-L1/PD-1 inhibitors, may also pose challenges for the design of pharmacokinetic and equivalence studies. From the manufacturing perspective, the increasing use of antibody-drug conjugates (ADC) would result in new barriers to entry.

According to Iqvia, the least attractive products for biosimilars development are those with less than €500 million annual sales in Europe. The report shows 93% of these products might fail to see biosimilar competition, compared to 27% of high-sales medicines. This negative trend would result in a “biosimilar void” corresponding to approx. €15 bln in lost savings. Iqvia also identified some exceptions that might experience a niche development, on the basis of specific technological and manufacturing know-how, platforms and market access excellence.

Another factor to be considered is reimbursement rate, that the report identifies in 51% for low-sales biologics with no biosimilar pipeline (approx. 30% lower than for products with a biosimilar pipeline). The management of the intellectual property referred to the originator should be also taken into consideration.

Orphan and one-off medicines

Despite the growing number of new biologics reaching marketing authorisation as orphan medicines, according to Iqvia biosimilar development is undergoing by now for only one product (eculizumab). No other orphan biologics are expected to face biosimilar competition in future, as annual sales of the 39 orphan medicines currently on the market are too low (approx. €105 mln).

A major factor limiting the development of biosimilars for orphan medicines is linked to the fact many of these therapies fall in the antibody-drug conjugates (ADC) and cell- or gene-therapies (ATMPs) categories (wave 3 biologics). This implies many challenges from the development and manufacturing point of view, higher upfront investments and a more complex setup for analytical and clinical testing.

According to Iqvia, there are currently 16 non-orphan biosimilar candidates under development, corresponding to wave 3 biologics. A limiting factor for this pipeline is identified in the still present fragmentation of the European regulatory system, e.g., reimbursement policies, incentives, and clinical standards. ATMPs, also referred to as one-off therapies, represent a particular case, being relatively young on the market. This leads to no expectation of LoE events in the next five years. The trend would then change, with some 10 products losing protection by 2040, but it should be considered together with the parallel declining of the number of eligible patients, as many of them might have been already treated with the one-off originator medicine.

Shifting standards of care

Another factor analysed by Iqvia is the impact on biosimilars development of the possible changes in the current standards of care, for example resulting from the availability of new and more user-friendly formulations of the originator (i.e., subcutaneous vs intravenous injections). The availability of second- and third generation versions of the original biologic should be considered as another factor limiting the possible market share of a biosimilar of the first-generation product. The picture is indeed furthermore complicated, as another frequent possibility, especially in the oncology area, sees the development of combination therapies based on the use of two or more biologics. As already said, some of them might be very costly (i.e. monoclonal antibodies and PD-1 inhibitors), and require a larger study population to demonstrate equivalence of the add-off effect.

The proposed solutions to fill the biosimilar void

The Iqvia report proposes several possible solutions to overcome the expected biosimilar void, starting from horizon scanning activities aimed at early identification of upcoming LoE events in order to prevent contractions in biosimilar development. Horizon scanning may also support market entry and granting of incentives based on demand. The development of biosimilars of orphan medicines might benefit of a default waiver of comparative efficacy studies, a suggested measure that according to Iqvia would not compromise the demonstration of biosimilarity. Improvements at the regulatory level might also help to streamline development, together with global convergence of regulatory guidance. Iqvia also suggests the adoption of clear regulatory pathways to incentivise the development of the next-generation, one-off biosimilar gene- and cellular treatments. Access might be improved by optimisation of market conditions, with incentives for clinicians combined with the introduction of prescription targets. New tender models would also be needed to favour multi-winner procurement practices.

EP’s draft position on Unitary SPC and SPC Regulation revision

November 17, 2023

by Giuliana Miglierini

The Committee for Legal Affairs (JURI) of the European Parliament released the draft amendments to the Commission’s proposals aimed to establish a Unitary Supplementary Protection Certificate (SPC) (links to the document and to the procedure) and to revise the current SPC Regulation (links to the document and the procedure).

On the dedicated pages of EP’s website, you can also find the opinion issued by the Consultative Working Party, according to the Inter-institutional agreement of 28 November 2001 on a more structured use of the recasting technique for legal acts.

A document analysing the potential impact of the Unitary SPC on access to health technologies was also prepared by the Policy Department for Citizens’ Rights and Constitutional Affairs Directorate-General for Internal Policies in September 2023.

We summarise the main features of the EP’s draft positions, which were discussed in the 7 November meeting of the JURI Committee.

The revision of the current SPC Regulation

The JURI Committee (Rapporteur Tiemo Wölken) moved to Recital 2 the statement that “medicinal products, in particular those that are the result of long, costly research will not continue to be developed in the Union unless they are covered by favourable rules that provide for sufficient protection to encourage such research”. Recitals 3 and 5 of the original proposal have been deleted, the last one referring to the risk research centres located within the EU might move to countries offering greater protection. The new Recital 2 makes now reference to the difficulty of establishing a direct link between favourable protection rules and EU competitiveness. If, on the one hand, it would be true that the attractiveness of EU markets might benefit from favourable protection, on the other it should be taken into account that European incentives can be granted also to authorised medicines from third countries. Furthermore, UE-based innovative companies can equally benefit from incentives in third countries.

Recital 13, referring to the request of a marketing authorisation for a biological medicinal pro-duct identified by its International Nonproprietary Name (INN), has been amended to indicate that the protection conferred by the SPC should extend to all biosimilars (and not to therapeutically equivalent products, as previously indicated).

A reference to Article [86] of the new Directive (EU) …/… [2023/0132(COD)] to be approved has been introduced in Recital 24, concerning fees that can be charged by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) with reference to centralised application for SPCs for paediatric medicinal products.

The newly inserted Recital 41 a highlights the importance of the timely entry of generics and biosimilars in the EU market, as it may support competition, reduction of prices, sustainability of national healthcare systems and access to affordable medicines.

Several amendments have been proposed for Recital 45. Among the main ones is the reference to the opportunity “to restrict the protection conferred by a supplementary protection certificate in accordance with Regulation (EU) 2019/933 so as to allow making for the exclusive purpose of export to third countries and any related acts in the Union strictly necessary for making or for the actual export itself […]”. The JURI Committee referred to “related acts” as those that “could include the possession, supply, offering to supply, import, using or synthesis of an active ingredient for the purpose of making a medicinal product containing that product, or temporary storage of the product or advertising for the exclusive purpose of export to third-country destinations”.

A phrase was added to Recital 60 on the centralised SPC register to deny the possibility to use the hereby contained information to support patent linkage, regulatory or administrative decisions related to generic or biosimilars, pricing and reimbursement decisions or tender bids. Article 35 – paragraph 11 a further emphasises this concept with reference to public authorities, that should not use such information for refusal, suspension, delay, withdrawal or revocation of marketing authorisations.

The JURI Committee also modified the definition of medicinal product contained in Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 1 of the proposed Regulation, making reference to “‘any substance or com-bination of substances that fulfils at least one of the following conditions”. These include properties for treating or preventing disease in humans, the possibility to restore, correct or modify physiological functions by exerting a pharmacological, immunological or metabolic action, or to making a medical diagnosis.

The new Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 12 a defines the meaning of the wording ‘economically linked’ with reference to “different holders of two or more basic patents protecting the same product, that one holder, directly or indirectly through one or more intermediaries, controls, is controlled by or is under common control with another holder”.

The JURI Committee also introduced the new Article 8 – paragraph 1 – point d b, stating the need to provide information on any direct public financial support received for research related to the development of the product.

The new Article 26 – paragraph 4 – point c a mentions the inclusion of any evidence in the notice of opposition in support of the opposition itself. According to the amended Article 26 – paragraph 6, the opposition panel should communicate its decision together with the reasoning for it. The same applies to the EUIPO (Article 26 – paragraph 9). The Office should also issue a single decision with reference to several oppositions filed against an examination opinion (Article 26 – paragraph 9 a). Undue delays are repeatedly discouraged.

Article 28 – paragraph 3 – point a was amended to indicate that examiners of patents and SPCs should possess relevant expertise and sufficient experience in the assigned tasks. Article 45 – paragraph 3 adds experts shall be verified for the absence of any conflict of interest.

Amendments of the Unitary SPC proposal

Many of the amendments made by the JURI Committee to the Unitary SPC proposal correspond to the ones seen above for the SPC recast. Among the distinctive ones is the new Recital 14 a, focusing on the “digital by default” principle and consequent electronic applications for unitary and combined applications for supplementary protection certificates. Article 8 – paragraph 4 a adds that the electronic application for a unitary SPC should use the formats made available by EUIPO. Other articles regulate the entire procedure to occur by exchange of electronic documentation.

Amended Recital 22 now makes explicit reference to the possibility to produce and store in the EU “in view of entering the market of any Member State upon expiry of the corresponding certificate (‘EU Day-one entry’) and any acts related thereto”.

The new Article 22 – paragraph 1 – point c b defines cases where the applicant shall waive the SPC rights for markets where the medicinal product has not been launched, i.e., the medicinal product is not placed on all Member States or a Member State market covered by the unitary certificate or combined centralised SPCs.

Comments from Medicines for Europe

The first drafts of the EP position on the SPC and SPC Regulation recast are a step in the right direction for access to medicines across Europe, according to Medicines for Europe. The association particularly appreciated the identification of the necessary safeguards for scrutiny of the SPC application before granting, to prevent invalid (non-innovative) SPCs from delaying access to generic and biosimilar medicines. The undue use of SPC expiry dates in the register to implement unlawful and anti-competitive patent linkage strategies were also deemed positive.

HERA reports on stockpiling of antimicrobials

February 24, 2023

access to data, AMR, antibiotic manufacturing capacities, antimicrobial resistance feasibility study on stockpiling, API manufacturing, convertible manufacturing capacity, critical classes of antibiotics, critical intermediates, critical market withdrawal, demand scenarios, ECDC, ema, Emergency Response Coordination Centre, EMVS, ESMP, European Commission, European Health Emergency preparedness and Response Authority, European Medicines Verification System, European Shortages Monitoring Platform, first-line therapy, GDF, generics sustainability, geopolitical shocks, Global Drug Facility, hard-to-make substances, HERA, incentives, Joint Procurement Agreement, lack in transparency, last-line therapy, mandatory reporting, McKinsey Solutions, new antibiotics, opt-out mechanism, physical stockpiling, rescEU system, reserve therapies, short-term mechanism, SNS, stockpiling obligations, stockpiling of antimicrobials, stockpiling systems, Stop TB Partnership, supply chain, supply chain disruptions, supply chain vulnerabilities, surge in demand, trade disruptions, tuberculosis, ultimate reserve line of therapy, US Strategic National Stockpile, virtual stockpiling

By Giuliana Miglierini

The European Health Emergency Preparedness and Response Authority (HERA) has published the two final reports, prepared by McKinsey Solutions for the European Commission, describing respectively the results obtained during the first and second phases of the antimicrobial resistance (AMR) feasibility study on stockpiling.

Antibiotic resistance represents a major threat for human health, as many active substances are losing efficacy towards many bacterial species. The first report (deliverables D1–D5) focuses on the mapping exercise run during the project and aimed to assessing the current situation, identifying vulnerabilities, and reviewing the stockpiling systems currently available in the EU and at the global level.

The second report (deliverables D6-D7) discusses the vulnerabilities identified in the previous phase and the potential tools and solutions to address them, including the assessment of available options for stockpiling of antimicrobials at EU level.

Mapping of the current situation

According to the first report, 32 classes of antibiotics were identified as critical with respect to the need to ensure continued access to patients in order to offer sufficient therapeutic and prophylactic options against systemic bacterial infections.

The analysis proceeded further to identify narrower sets of antibiotics most useful to treat infections due to common pathogens with acquired antibiotic resistance: a first subset of 20 substances was indicated as specially relevant as first- or last-line/reserve therapies against AMR pathogens, and from this a shorter sublist of 13 was identified as last-line/reserve therapies for severe and potentially lethal infections.

The report did not identified any critical market withdrawal of antibiotic substances from the EU market, even though some criticalities may occur in some member states. Alternatives with better efficacy and/or safety profiles are still available on the market for the six substances identified as fully withdrawn.

According to the report, stockpiling at the EU level might not have a direct impact on the mitigation of market-driven trends. Improved monitoring of potentially critical future withdrawals would be needed to enable early detection of shortages and establishment of counteractions.

Innovation in the field of new antibiotics is still largely insufficient, with only six substances currently in phase 3 clinical development. These might prove useful especially as the ultimate reserve line of therapy after exhaustion of the currently available therapeutic options. The report suggests that, upon reaching approval, these innovative substances could be considered for future stockpiling or incentives to facilitate launch in the EU.

The analysis of supply chain vulnerabilities aimed to identify higher priority antibiotics as possible candidates for stockpiling. The report highlights that the analysis was “significantly limited by a lack of outside-in transparency”. Potential single points of failure and/or past disruptions in most supply chains were identified for the 32 critical antimicrobial classes, but the lack of capacity data made the in-depth analysis particularly difficult.

Six representative sets of antibiotic substances were assessed, for five of which less than 25% of API manufacturing occurs in the EU. Similar trends have been also observed for the remaining 26 classes. The supply of critical intermediates (i.e., 6-APA and 7-ACA) appears particularly worrying and may potentially lead to a future shortage of that specific antibiotic/class in the case of a shock. HERA report warns against the possible risks related to potential vulnerability to trade disruptions and unforeseen geopolitical shocks, which may lead to a significant shortage in case of failure of just a single manufacturing site, independent of its location.

The feasibility study also mapped the already existing or planned stockpiling systems, so to use this information to better design the new, EU-level stockpiling system. Four different levels were identified, ranging from the EU’s and member states’ systems to multilateral and/or international NGO stockpiles, stockpiles/inventories in the commercial value chain, and extra-EU national stockpiles.

At the EU and EFTA national level, 13 countries reported a national stockpile that includes antimicrobials, even if greatly differing as for the chosen model. The rescEU system was identified at the EU level as the most relevant mechanism potentially useful to complement and/or integrate with a publicly managed physical stockpile of antibiotics.

The Stop TB Partnership’s Global Drug Facility (GDF) was identified as one of the international models of interest, together with the US Strategic National Stockpile (SNS). The GDF includes more than 2,000 partners and acts as the largest purchaser and supplier of medicines to treat tuberculosis in the public sector globally. The suggestion is for HERA and the European Commission to collaborate with the GDF in case of a TB-related demand spike. The SNS may represent a significant example of how to address many of the criticalities highlighted by the report.

How to better address stockpiling of antibiotics

The second report builds on the above-mentioned observations to go deeper in analysing from different perspectives and targets the possible approaches to the stockpiling of antibiotics. The indication is for HERA to consider using existing initiatives (e.g., rescEU, the EU’s Joint Procurement Agreement and the Emergency Response Coordination Centre) and to work closely with EU member states and other EU agencies (i.e., EMA and the ECDC).

An important warning was also made: stockpiling is just “a short-term mechanism. It does not alter the fundamental market environment. It can only represent one part of any answer to the challenges faced by health agencies including HERA, whether AMR-related or otherwise”.

A sudden and unpredictable surge in demand and an interruption to supply are the two archetypes analysed to better identify how to address stockpiling.

More than 30 potential demand scenarios were considered, leading to the identification of one high priority stockpiling candidate (higher demand for anti-mycobacterial medicines due to a surge of imported tuberculosis cases) and other three important, but not yet prioritised scenarios. These include stockpiling against the accidental or deliberate release of a bacterial pathogen, treating bacterial super-infections due to a viral pandemic, and the potential rapid spread of an AMR pathogen in the current European context.

Stockpiling for supply chain disruptions was also assessed, leading to the conclusion that alternative products are available as substitutes in the great majority of cases. A point of attention is represented by cross-class substitution, that might provoke different side effects for different groups of patients and could represent a potential factor for the promotion of AMR. More complex treatment procedures (e.g., i.m. vs oral administration), higher costs for healthcare systems and organisational issues for providers should also be considered.

Virtual stockpiling to be managed through the new European Shortages Monitoring Platform (ESMP) or the existing European Medicines Verification System (EMVS) would increase transparency of the system. A mandate or incentives to support private sector physical stockpiling was considered as the most feasible option available. Efforts should be made by the EU Commission to better characterise the relationships between the economic sustainability of limited generics productions (e.g. oral formulations for paediatric use of narrow-spectrum genericised penicillins) and the risk of shortages.

Five lines of possible action

The second report identifies five possible lines for future action aimed to strengthen the antibiotic supply chain and improve the stockpiling feasibility. At first instance, it would be important to improve transparency and reporting, so to better enable the availability of targeted preparedness and response measures.

This might include the harmonisation and extension of mandatory reporting of medicine shortages across the EU, the possibility for HERA to access regulatory data from agencies and information from marketing authorisation holders on supply chain setup and inventories in the case of a healthcare emergency situation, the implementation of an opt-out mechanism from stockpiling obligations at final product level, and the introduction of a general extension of reporting requirements for the supply chain of antibiotic products sold in the EU.

The second line of possible action addresses how to lower wastage in existing private and public inventories and stockpiles. Available options include regulatory measures and limited financial support for drug stability studies or for packaging options able to maintain product quality over longer periods of time.

Facilitation and regulatory support for mutual recognition of national level approvals for antibiotics might help to improve the flexibility of existing inventories and stockpiles, so as to better mitigate the shortages occurring in some member states.

Other two complementary approaches have been identified as potentially useful to improve the supply chain resilience of the EU antibiotics market. On one hand, diversified and in-market antibiotic manufacturing capacities and capabilities could be supported by targeted incentives and investments. On the other, the maintenance of reserve/convertible manufacturing capacity for hard-to-make substances might be also supported, so to better face the need to rapidly compensate the increased requests from patients should disruptions occur.

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

March 4, 2022

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

by Giuliana Miglierini

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

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

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

The main themes emerged from the answers

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

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

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

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

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

EFPIA’s contribution

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

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

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

Comments from Medicines for Europe

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

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

Other comments from industrial associations

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

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

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

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

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

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

The position of community pharmacists

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

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

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

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

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

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

incentives Archives - European Industrial Pharmacists Group (EIPG)

The risk of a biosimilar void in Europe

HERA reports on stockpiling of antimicrobials

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

News from EIPG