Medicines for Europe Archives - European Industrial Pharmacists Group (EIPG)

Home  /  The proposals of the EU Commission for the revision of the IP legislation  /  Medicines for Europe

EMA, new features for the PRIority Medicines (PRIME) scheme


By Giuliana Miglierini Based on the review of results obtained in the first five years of implementation of the PRIority Medicines (PRIME) scheme, the European Medicines Agency has launched a set of new features to further enhance the support to Read more

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


By Giuliana Miglierini In parallel to the new pharmaceutical legislation, on 27 April 2023 the EU Commission issued the proposal for the new framework protecting intellectual property (IP). The reform package impacts on the pharmaceutical industry, as it contains proposals Read more

Webinar: Pharmacovigilance as a specialization and the role of the Pharmacovigilance Risk Assessment Committee (PRAC)


EIPG webinar Next EIPG webinar is to be held on Wednesday 31st of May 2023 at 17.00 CEST (16.00 BST) in conjunction with PIER and University College Cork. Sofia Trantza, a pharmacist with long experience as a Qualified Person for Pharmacovigilance Read more

•••

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

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

By Giuliana Miglierini

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

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

Supplementary Protection Certificates

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

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

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

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

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

Compulsory licensing

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

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

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

Standard Essential Patents

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

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

Comments from the stakeholders

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Review of the pharmaceutical legislation, the proposals of the industrial associations

February 10, 2023 , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

By Giuliana Miglierini

The Staff Working Document on “Vulnerabilities of the global supply chains of medicines” published by the European Commission on 17 October 2022 identified several issues related to the current, often difficult situation experienced by pharmaceutical supply chains. Among these are the increasing complexity and specialisation, challenges linked to the production process and technologies, the lack of geographical diversification and other dependencies, the need to unlock the potential of data to improve supply and demand predictability, and a perceived regulatory complexity.

The same issues have been widely debated under different perspectives during recent months as a possible contribution to the current revision of the pharmaceutical legislation, a major goal of the EU Commission’s Pharmaceutical Strategy for Europe together with the New Industrial Strategy for Europe.

The structured dialogue with stakeholders has been the tool chosen to facilitate the interaction and exchange of opinions in order to optimise the development and implementation of the new pieces of legislation. We resume some of the latest proposals arising from the main industrial associations on how to better achieve this very challenging objective.

EFPIA proposals for action

In November 2022, the European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industry Associations published a report to illustrate its proposals for action to tackle shortages of medicines and to improve the efficiency and robustness of the supply chain.

Five key principles form the basis of nine operative proposals. A standard definition of a shortage and an interoperable IT European monitoring/notification system would be needed in order to build a harmonised EU prevention and mitigation system. Epidemiological data are deemed essential to better analyse patient demand, so to improve transparency in the overall supply chain by means of the European Medicines Verification System (EMVS). Targeted shortage prevention plans (SPP) should be developed to prevent the risk of shortages for critical products and to manage safety stocks on a risk-based approach. Regulatory mitigation measures for shortages would also be of help in improving flexibility. At the global level, the maintenance of global open supply chains should be the goal, supported by the strong existing EU manufacturing and R&D footprint, and where appropriate, targeted incentives for the diversification of supply chains.

“The current revision of EU pharmaceutical legislation is a golden opportunity to reverse the trends of the last 25 years. It is our once-in-a-generation chance to reinvent the regulatory framework to ensure we have a modern approach that matches our ambition to be a hub of medical innovation”, writes EFPIA’s director general Nathalie Moll in a recent post, published on the association’s website.

In its Regulatory roadmap to Innovation of January 2023, EFPIA focused on how to achieve a more agile and streamlined regulatory framework, so to shorten the period needed for approval of a new active substance (currently 426 days, vs 244 days in the USA, 306 in Canada, 313 in Japan or 315 in Australia). Innovative approaches to clinical trials, including complex clinical trials (CCTs) and decentralised trials (DCTs), and the development of clear guidance on the use and regulatory acceptance of real-world data (RWD) and real-world evidence (RWE) are among the eight areas of possible immediate actions identified by EFPIA.

A dynamic regulatory assessment pathway based on early and iterative dialogue on data, international data standards and technology, and cloud-based submission modalities would support EMA and HTAs in accepting iterative data generation as part of the evaluation procedures.

As for drug-device combinations and in-vitro diagnostics, EFPIA suggests adopting an integrated EU pathway for the assessment, including the possibility for parallel advice with Notified Bodies. A clearer definition of unmet medical need would also be needed, as well as the full digitalisation of regulatory processes. A common definition of shortage coupled to the setting up of a European reporting system (possibly the already existing EMVS) would support the collection of real-time information and activation of alerts. Epidemiological data should be elaborated and released by the European Centre for Disease Control (ECDC).

The Variation Regulation is also under review by the EU Commission. EFPIA’s proposal is to incorporate the considerations for pharmaceutical product lifecycle management set forth by the ICH Q12 guideline, and to develop a vaccine-specific annex to the Variation guideline.

EFPIA also identified four areas requiring legislative change to accelerate pharmaceutical innovation in Europe. These include the possibility to redesign EMA’s committee structure in order to speed up the efficiency of regulatory assessment and decision-making process from EMA approval to EC decision.

Expedited regulatory pathways (ERP) are still of limited use in the EU, according to EFPIA. The suggestion is to embed the PRIME scheme in the new legislation to ensure its optimal use and allocation of sufficient resources. The creation of a new legal category for drug-device combination products, to be regulated as medicinal products, would also accelerate the approval of this increasingly important type of therapeutic option.

The transition from paper leaflets to electronic product information (ePI) should be also supported within the new pharmaceutical legislation, while considering the still present difficulties that may be experienced by elders and people not having access to computers or mobile devices. A new, centralised ePI repository/database would also be needed.

Medicines for Europe, focus on access and prevention of shortages

The 2022 of Medicines for Europe (MfE), representing the generic, biosimilar and value-added medicines industry, focused its lobbying activities mainly on access to medicines and prevention/ mitigation of shortages.

The economic and geopolitical crisis highly impacted the sector, which suffers strict price caps requirements in market policies. In a recent letter to the EU institutions, Medicines for Europe highlights the possible link between the shortages of amoxicillin and amoxiclav antibiotics and the low pricing and procurement policies in place in many EU member states.

“There are significant risks of more medicine shortages in 2023”, writes the association, which may be tackled by concrete policy reforms and industry commitments.

The economic model for generic medicines in Europe is identified as the structural root cause of shortages, requiring manufacturers to run their plants at the maximum capacity in order to “remain profitable as GMP rules require continuous investment in manufacturing plant upgrades”. This leaves little space to accommodate requests for increased production in order to face shortages. Other measures that, for MfE, impacted on the consolidation of supply chains and generic markets include the requests set forth by the Falsified medicines directive, as well as the Brexit, the Covid emergency and the current war scenarios.

The letter also identifies some possible short- and medium-term measures useful to mitigate the risk of shortages and improve the efficiency of the generic’s supply chains.

The first ones include the request for more regulatory flexibility for packaging, to facilitate the distribution of the available products in different member states. Clearer thresholds for nitrosamines and the need to avoid new regulations that may have a disproportionate impact on low margin medicines are also suggested. A better dialogue on immediate measures to tackle the cost of inflation on generic medicines would also be beneficial, says MfE, which also agrees on the need to better estimate demand surges on the basis of available data and epidemiological analysis.

The association of the generic and biosimilar industry shares also the importance of a rapid digitalisation of the medicines regulatory network in order to fully exploit the potential of big data. On the medium-term (2025), this may prove important to achieve objective related to the implementation of the ePI, the reduction of variations, the management of API sources, the harmonisation of packs and a better handling of requirements at national level.

Suggested actions at the legislative level include the introduction of legal guidance on the implementation of the criteria established by the Public Procurement Directive. The Transparency Directive may take example from Canada, where prices for generics varies according to the variation of the demand. A Medicine Security Act might represent the legislative tool to support investments in manufacturing diversification and greener technologies.

MfE also highlights some threats resulting from political choices such as national stockpiling requirements, that can increase costs and reduce cross-country solidarity. A preferred approach would be that of the European strategic reserve concept, based on rolling reserves. The real usefulness of joint procurement should also be better evaluated, especially with reference to OTC and other medicines directly dispensed by community pharmacies.

A note published in November 2022 focused on the still greatly unused potential of value-added medicines, a sector which according to MfE may benefit by a re-evaluation of the current innovation model, leading to a increased attention to the entire lifecycle of a medicine and on off-patent molecules. The request to the EU Commission is to fully acknowledge value added medicines in the EU pharmaceutical legislation as a separate group of medicines, with its own dedicated regulatory pathway and proportionate data exclusivity incentives.

The vision of the ATMP sector

The vision of the advanced therapies (ATMPs) sector, represented by the Alliance for Regenerative Medice (ARM), was illustrated in an event held in November 2022 at the European Parliament.

The declining competitiveness of the EU and how to ensure patients’ access to transformative treatments have been subjects of the debate. Many of the newly approved treatments fall under the ATMP categories of medicinal products (cell and gene therapies, tissue therapies), that according to ARM would require a better suited policy and regulatory framework to fully exploit their potential. “The same policies and approaches that brought us yesterday’s biomedical innovation simply will not work for the cell and gene therapies of today and tomorrow. The EU has led before — and can lead once again — but the time to act is now.” said Timothy D. Hunt, chief executive officer of ARM.

According to data by ARM, the number of ongoing industry clinical trials in Europe involving ATMPs is increasing very slowly (just 2% at the end of June 2022). More in detail, only one phase 1 study was initiated in Europe in the first half of 2022, says the association, and the region accounted for just 11% of new trials involving ATMPs and started in the same period. Many EU’s approved advanced therapies are also suffering, with 23 ATMPs withdrawn from the market. The reduced interest of the sector towards Europe is also acknowledged by the declining number of developers headquarters (-2% vs the previous five years): a trend opposite to that of North America and, especially, the Asia-Pacific region


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

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

by Giuliana Miglierini

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

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

Key principles from the EIPG’s webinar

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

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

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

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

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

Comments to ICH Q2(R2)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Comments to ICH Q14

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

March 4, 2022 , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

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.


A new role for EMA and a pilot project for the repurposing of medicines

November 12, 2021 , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

by Giuliana Miglierini

A draft agreement was reached at the end of October between the Council of the European Union and the European Parliament to reinforce the mandate of the European Medicines Agency (EMA) with reference to crisis preparedness and management for medicinal products and medical devices. “EU-level preparation and coordination are two essential ingredients to fight future health crises. Thanks to this deal we are adding an essential new building block to upgrade the EU’s health architecture. It will allow the EU’s Medicines Agency to make sure we have the medicines needed to deal with public health emergencies”, said Janez Poklukar, the Slovenian minister for health.

The revision of EMA mandate is part of the broader activities announced by the EU Commission in November 2020 to achieve the European Health Union; these also include the reinforcement of the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control and a draft law on cross-border health threats. The establishment of the new Health Emergency Preparedness and Response Authority (HERA), announced in September 2021, is also part of the package. The draft agreement shall now be endorsed both by the Council and the Parliament before entering into force.

Three new key targets for EMA

The draft agreement reached by the Council and Parliament negotiators focuses on three main areas. The first one refers to the definition of a major event and how to recognise it: these shall be events likely to pose a serious risk to public health in relation to medicinal products, as acknowledged by a positive opinion from the Medicines Shortages Steering Group, and which may trigger specific actions such as the adoption of a list of critical medicinal products to fight the health threat.

Solid funding from the Union budget shall be also provided to EMA in order to support the work of the new steering groups, task force, working parties and expert panels. The availability of provisions for adequate data protection is important to guarantee the full compliance to the GDPR regulation and other EU data protection rules, and the safe transfer of personal data relevant to EMA’s activities (e.g. data from clinical trials).

EMA shall play an improved role in the monitoring and management of shortages of medicines and medical devices, a critical activity for the availability of the products needed during public health emergencies. Other points of the agreement include the timely development of high-quality, safe and efficacious medicinal products, and the creation of a new EMA’s structure specific for expert panels in charge of the assessment of high-risk medical devices and of essential advice on crisis preparedness and management.

How to tackle shortages of medicines

According to the EU Parliament, two “shortages steering groups” (for medicines and medical devices, respectively) shall be created by EMA; if needed, these groups may also include expert advice from relevant stakeholders (e.g. patients and medical professionals, marketing authorization holders, wholesale distributors, etc.).

Parliament negotiators highlighted the importance to achieve a high transparency of the process, including avoidance of interests related to industry sectors for members of the two groups; summaries of the proceedings and recommendations shall be also made publicly available.

A European Shortages Monitoring Platform shall be created by EMA to facilitate the collection of information on shortages, supply and demand of medicinal products; a public webpage with information on shortages of critical medicines and medical devices shall be also made available.

As already occurred during the Covid pandemic, future public health emergencies may boost the development of new medicines and medical devices. Sponsors of clinical trials conducted during health emergencies will be required to make the study protocol publicly available in the EU clinical trials register at the start of the trial, as well as a summary of the results. Following the granting of the marketing authorisation, EMA will also publish product information with details of the conditions of use and clinical data received (e.g. anonymised personal data and no commercially confidential information).

“With this agreement, Parliament makes both the Agency and all actors in the supply chain more transparent, involving them more in the process and fostering synergies between EU agencies. Moreover, we pave the way to promoting clinical trials for the development of vaccines and treatments, boosting transparency on those issues. In short, more transparency, more participation, more coordination, more effective monitoring and more prevention”, said Rapporteur Nicolás González Casares (S&D, ES).

EMA’s pilot project for the repurposing of medicines

The repurposing of already approved and marketed medicines is another key action put in place to ensure improved response capacity in case of future health emergencies.

A new pilot project to support the repurposing of off-patent medicines has been launched by EMA and the Heads of Medicines Agencies (HMA), with special focus on not-for-profit organisations and the academia as the main actors to carry out research activities needed to support the regulatory submission for the new indication. The initiative follows the outcomes reached by the European Commission’s Expert Group on Safe and Timely Access to Medicines for Patients (STAMP).

Interested sponsors may access EMA’s specific scientific advice upon submission of the drug repurposing submission form to the e-mail address [email protected] by 28 February 2022. More information is available in a Question-and-Answer document. The pilot will last until scientific advice for the selected repurposing candidate projects; filing of an application by a pharmaceutical company for the new indication is another target. Final results of the project will be published by EMA.

Comments from the industry

The European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industry Associations (EFPIA) welcomed the proposed framework for the repurposing of authorised medicines. “This pilot launch comes at a timely moment to test whether a streamlined and more transparent regulatory pathway for repurposing of off-patent established products increases the chances of including existing scientific evidence into regulatory assessment. One of the goals of the pilot is to raise awareness regarding the standards required for regulatory-ready evidence on the road to further increase availability of authorised therapeutic use”, said the chair of EFPIA’s Regulatory Strategy Committee Alan Morrison.

Innovation on existing, well-known molecules through repurposing can deliver huge benefits for patients, according to Medicines for Europe. The Association of the generic and biosimilar industry supports the pilot project as a way to generate robust data packages and to translate research into access for patients. A sustainable innovation ecosystem for off-patent medicine is the expected final outcome, possibly including also reformulation of existing medicines, new strengths or adaptation for specific patient groups (i.e. paediatric populations). “These investments must also be recognised in pricing and reimbursement policies to make access a reality for all patients”, writes Medicines for Europe.


First steps of the HERA Authority and comments from industrial and medical associations

October 22, 2021 , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

by Giuliana Miglierini

The new European Health Emergency preparedness and Response Authority (HERA) has started its operative phase. Initially launched in February 2021, HERA has been modelled by the European Commission on the example of the US’s DARPA agency, and it will be in charge of anticipating threats and potential health crises.

The first three calls for tender to support HERA’s setup have been published on the Commission’s website and will remain open until 29 October 2021. They are targeted towards addressing different aspects of the management of Covid-19 therapeutics and antimicrobial resistance.

A total sum of €7 million from the EU4Health programme will fund these activities. An info session on the three calls was delivered on 14 October 2021 by European Health and Digital Executive Agency (HaDEA) in collaboration with DG Santé (see more at this link). A summary of HERA’s activities in the field of crisis preparedness and emergency response is also available here. A budget of €6 billion from the current Multiannual Financial Framework 2022-2027 is available to fund HERA’s setup and activities, plus additional support from other EU programmes, for a total of almost €30 billion. HERA will be part of the internal Commission structure, and it is expected to become fully operational in early 2022.

“HERA’s role is to improve the EU’s development, manufacturing, procurement and distribution of key medical countermeasures – said the Commissioner for Health, Stella Kyriakides, following the recent Informal Meeting of Health Ministers in Ljubljana, Slovenia -. HERA will also be crucial in ensuring accessibility and availability of medicines. As I said to Ministers today, HERA is a joint undertaking, with Member States, EU Agencies, the European Parliament and other concerned stakeholders, including industry and civil society. HERA’s strength and success will come from our joint preparedness and joint response, and our capacity to bringing joint solutions. HERA is now operational and should be fully up and running early next year.”

HERA’s first activities

The call for tender on antimicrobial resistancerefers to a service contract to run a study comprehensive of a technological review of the latest AMR medical-countermeasures (e.g.; medicines, medical devices, vaccines) and a gap analysis and assessment of needs amongst the EU Member States and key stakeholders. The study shall also include options for possible actions, funding and provision of support mechanisms, and exploration of available tools suitable to ensure the availability of safe and effective products in the European market. These products are expected to be immediately available to the EU and member states in the event of a public health emergency. The estimated total value of the tender is €1 million.

Stockpiling of medical countermeasures in the area of AMR is the subject of the second feasibility study (estimated total value €1 million). The study shall analyse physical stockpiling solutions compared to other options, providing identification and assessment of all available opportunities. The needs and availability of AMR countermeasures shall be also assessing, both at member states and EU level, as well as the mapping of relevant stockpiling systems currently operated at EU and/or global level (e.g. WHO). Possible funding mechanisms (including procurement options), identification and assessment of operational deployment mechanisms and considerations on liability and regulatory aspects and/or constraints are also to be included in the study.

The third feasibility study has the higher estimated total value (€5 million) and will focus on the design and prototype development for a mapping platform on Covid-19 therapeutics in the EU. The platform is expected to map the production capacity and supply of products intended to treat Covid-19, both already on the market and in R&D phases. Possible examples include ICU medicines, heparin, dexamethasone and antibiotics, in vitro diagnostics devices and/or companion diagnostics.

Comments from stakeholders

Many stakeholders released their comments to welcome the creation of the new Authority.

“The creation of HERA is a first step to putting Europe on the front foot in addressing global health threats.”, said EFPIA Director General, Nathalie Moll. “The speed at which Europe became the epicentre of the Covid-19 crisis meant, as a region, we were simply reacting to issues as they arose, working together to find solutions as quickly as possible”.

The lessons learnt during the pandemic revealed a number of weaknesses in Europe’s ability to respond to a public health crisis. HERA’s ability to balance coordination and unity with agility and responsiveness as threats emerge shall be central to its success, according to EFPIA. The Federation, together with Vaccines Europe, supports an end-to-end approach to govern HERA’s activities, and a collaborative, partnership-based model to maximise the strength of each stakeholder in a highly coordinated approach.

The association representing the generic and biosimilar industry, Medicines for Europe, wrote in a note that HERA should “be an efficient agency with strong links to healthcare industries”. A joint industrial cooperation forum to coordinate interactions of manufacturing associations and EU authorities, a regulatory framework able to prioritise the supply of essential medicines and the elimination of the proposal for redundant manufacturing capacity are just some suggestions made by the Association, which is more favourable towards manufacturing investment in a wide range of medicine production types, as outlined in the Structured Dialogue.

Reserve policies should be also revised in order to avoid waste, costly destruction, and distorting supplies of medicines to certain (smaller) EU countries. The functioning of joint procurement system should be also addressed and improved by the Commission, to avoid distortions in the internal market and provide accurate demand estimates.

The Federation of the European Academies of Medicine (FEAM) published in May 2021 a report jointly prepared with the Wellcome Trust, highlighting the opportunity in the short term not to overstep HERA’s role in relation to others European authorities (e.g. the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control) as a pre-requirement to ensure its success.

The new-born Authority should also try to harmonise the European research and development landscape for pandemic preparedness and response, in order to remain “relevant and active between emergencies”.