supply chain Archives - European Industrial Pharmacists Group (EIPG)

A new member within EIPG


The European Industrial Pharmacists Group (EIPG) is pleased to announce the Romanian Association (AFFI) as its newest member following the annual General Assembly of EIPG in Rome (20th-21st April 2024). Commenting on the continued growth of EIPG’s membership, EIPG President Read more

The EU Parliament voted its position on the Unitary SPC


by Giuliana Miglierini The intersecting pathways of revision of the pharmaceutical and intellectual property legislations recently marked the adoption of the EU Parliament’s position on the new unitary Supplementary Protection Certificate (SPC) system, parallel to the recast of the current Read more

Reform of pharma legislation: the debate on regulatory data protection


by Giuliana Miglierini As the definition of the final contents of many new pieces of the overall revision of the pharmaceutical legislation is approaching, many voices commented the possible impact the new scheme for regulatory data protection (RDP) may have Read more

Reactions to the proposed ban of PFAS

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

by Giuliana Miglierini

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

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

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

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

 The current role of PFAS

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

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

The main features of the restriction proposal

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

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

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

EFPIA response to ECHA’s consultation

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The position of the medical device sector

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

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


EMA’s 3-year work plan for the Quality domain

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

by Giuliana Miglierini

The European Medicines Agency has released the input notes made by the GMDP Inspectors Working Group (IWG) as for the drafting of the 3-year workplan for the Quality domain. The document, which reflects the objectives of the Network Strategy and Regulatory Science Strategy, addresses many aspects which may affect the overall efficiency of the pharmaceutical supply chain, both at the routine and specific level.

The document identifies a number of strategic goals aimed at improving the overall integrity and resilience of the pharmaceutical supply chain and the product quality, and to optimise the im-pact of new technologies. Description of the tactical goals follows, i.e., the projects and actions to be activated in order to reach the above-mentioned strategic objectives.

Improved traceability of the supply chain

Strategical goals include the enhancement of traceability, oversight and security for both the human and veterinary medicine supply chain. Four different actions are planned at the tactical level, starting from a better sharing of information regarding manufacturers, distributors, pro-ducts and their respective compliance. To this instance, actions to improve EudraGMDP records are expected.

Inspections of the repositories system should also be tackled by means of a liaison with the Ex-pert Group in inspectional procedures. The implementation of the new Veterinary Regulation should be addressed paying attention both to GDP for veterinary medicines and active substances. Improvement of the inspection capacity may benefit from the development of a specific training curriculum for GDP inspectors; to this instance, the IWG suggests a possible collaboration with PIC/S, through the EU4Health Joint Action 11 and the associated Work Programme 6.

Enhanced inspector capacity

Another strategic goal set forth by the GMDP IWG aims to improve inspector capacity building at EU and international level. To this regard, suggested actions include the support to the international API programme, comprehensive of the provisions of the new Veterinary Regulation related to API inspections and controls. Veterinary specific GMP guideline annexes 4 and 5 should be harmonised in collaboration with PIC/S. The collaboration should also include ongoing initiatives on inspection reliance, in order to better identify barriers preventing member states from accepting inspection results from other trusted authorities. PIC/S and the International Coalition of Medicines Regulatory Agencies (ICRMA) should also collaborate with the GMDP IWG to reach an agreement on shared definitions, best practices and harmonised approaches for distant assessment and hybrid inspections. The pilot programme for sterile inspections should be also finalised, with participation of all member states. Routine assessor-inspector joint inspections are suggested, as well as a training course specific to the new Annex 1.

The development of a harmonised, EU level guidance on data integrity is the tool identified by the GMDP IWG to reinforce responsibility of marketing authorisation holders (MAHs) for product quality. This goal may be achieved by adapting the current guidance published in the form of Q&As into Chapter 4 and Annex 11 of the GMP Guide, in collaboration with the WHO and PIC/S. A better attention on MAHs responsibilities and to the supervision of API manufacturers should also build upon the recommendations contained in EMA’s lessons learnt report (LLE) on Nitrosamines.

Critical manufacturing sites and new technologies

The review of long-term risks resulting from dependency on limited number of manufacturers and sites should support a better supply chain resilience. The review should be aimed to the identification of sites manufacturing a significant number of products or producing medical pro-ducts for a significant number of markets within the European economical area (EEA). The GMDP IWG also suggests performing cooperative supervision of these sites between member states and other strategic partners.

A better understanding of the possible implications resulting from the introduction of new manufacturing technologies has been also deemed important to regulate the new supply chains. To this instance, the indication of the IWG is to consider if a specific GMP annex would be re-quired in order to support the adoption of new and innovative technologies. As for decentralised manufacturing, this topic should also be evaluated in the GMP Guide to medicinal products other than advanced therapies.

Amendments to current guidelines

The document of the GMDP IWG details the specific guidelines that would need consideration in view of the proposed interventions.

Many actions are planned to achieve their objectives by the end of 2023. More specifically, the IWG expects to provide the EU Commission with the final text of the GMP for novel veterinary medicinal products and for autogenous veterinary vaccines. GMPs should be also revised to include Nitrosamines LLE recommendations to MAHs, so to ensure adequate quality agreements are in place with manufacturers.

The same deadline should apply to the development of specific training material on ICH Q9, addressing risk identification and risk management. This action would support EU members of the Expert Working Group (EWG) and should be coordinated with the dedicated PIC/S expert circle. A similar action is planned with respect to ICH Q12 on lifecycle management and ICH Q7 (GMP for active substances), as well as to other quality guidelines for veterinary medicines. The GMDP IWG is also expected to support the EWG in developing the new ICH Q13 guideline on continuous manufacturing.

Annex 15 on the Qualification and Validation may be revised by Q2 2024 in order to include considerations on new technology in facilities, products and processes, including also the possible extension of LLE recommendations to APIs.

The end of 2024 is the date indicated for the review of GMPs for advanced therapy medicinal products in order to include the new provisions of the revised Annex 1. The same deadline applies to the possible revision of Annex 16 on the certification by a Qualified Person and batch release, in order to provide further guidance on batch traceability according to LLE recommendations. The end of next year may see also the drafting of the final text of Annex 4 on the manufacture of veterinary medicinal products other than the immunological ones, based on comments received on the concept paper and the resulting draft text. A similar action is planned for Annex 5 on the manufacture of immunological veterinary medicinal products.

Chapter 4 (Documentation) and Annex 11 (Computerised systems) of the GMP Guide should be revised to assure data integrity in the context of GMP. The proposed deadline for these actions is Q1 2026.

Support to scientific advice and communication

A specific chapter of the GMDP IWG document is dedicated to actions deemed to support scientific advice activities. In this case too, target dates are provided for the completion of the different actions. These include the provision to the EU Commission of scientific advice on GMP standards to be included in the implementing act on GMP for veterinary medicinal products and active substances.

At the international level, the IWG plans to continue its efforts to reach a better convergence through existing mutual recognition platforms and programmes and to support the EU Commission to establish and maintain mutual recognition agreements. Collaborations with ICRMA, the EDQM, Chinese and Indian regulators should be also continued, as well as the dialogue with interested parties and stakeholders.


HERA reports on stockpiling of antimicrobials

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

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.



Steps towards the final approval of the IP action plan

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

By Giuliana Miglierini

The end of 2021 may see the final approval of many pieces of the new legislative framework announced in November 2020 by the European Commission. An important piece of this puzzle is represented by the IP Action Plan, governing the protection of intellectual property (IP); a step forward in this direction is represented by the resolution of 11 November 2021 on the Own-initiative report of the European Parliament.

The final text licensed in single reading is the result of the examination of the initial draft report – issued in May 2020 by the Committee for Legal Affairs, rapporteur Marion Walsmann – by several other Committees (IMCO, DEVE, CULT, AGRI).

The main points of the resolution

The resolution recognises the importance for the European economy of a balanced protection and enforcement of intellectual property rights (IPR). In years 2012-2016, the knowledge-intensive industries generated almost 30% of all jobs and almost 45% of total economic activity (in terms of Gross Domestic Product, GDP) in the EU; the IPR-intensive industries account for 93% of total EU exports of goods.

Europe’s recovery and resilience capacity is also highly impacted, as demonstrated by the pandemic when shortages of certain medicinal products and vaccines occurred. The EU Parliament acknowledges the role played by intellectual property in increasing the overall value of companies,especially the small-and-medium size ones (SMEs).

A current limitation to IP protection in Europe is represented by the still fragmented situation across different member states, which often leads to parallel national validation procedures and litigation for European patents. To this instance, the Parliament suggests the establishment of an IP coordinator at European level, to harmonise the approach to EU IP policy and enhance cooperation between the different bodies involved in the process (i.e. national IP authorities, Commission Directorates-General, EPO, EUIPO, WIPO, etc).

The Parliament also recognised the role IP plays in the pharmaceutical sector, where the availability of incentives greatly favours the development of new and innovative treatments. The resolution asks the Commission to support the innovative potential of European companies “on the basis of a comprehensive IP regime”, so to guarantee effective protection for R&D investments and favour fair returns through licensing. The availability of open technology standards has been valued as an important competitive element on the wider, global scenario.

Many different types of incentives are suggested by the Parliament’s resolution as useful to support micro-enterprises and SMEs in filing and managing their intellectual property, including IP vouchers, IP Scan and other Commission and EUIPO initiatives to support simple registration procedures and low administrative fees. The newly created European IP Information Centre may represents a fundamental reference point to increase knowledge in the field. The Parliament also suggests to introducing an EU-level utility model protection, not yet available, as a possible fast and low-cost protection tool to protect technical inventions.

Unitary patents and improved market competition

Still missing members states are urged to adhere to the enhanced cooperation scheme for the creation of a Unitary Patent Protection (UPP) and to ratify the Protocol to the Agreement on a Unified Patent Court on provisional application (PPA). The activation of this unique Court in charge of the examination of litigations would allow for a more efficient process and for lowering legal costs and improving legal certainty.

Fragmentation remains an issue also with respect to Supplementary Protection Certificates (SPCs): to this instance, the resolution asks the Commission to issue guidelines for member states and to provide a legislative proposal based on an exhaustive impact assessment. A major criticality to be solved is represented by the unitary patent not providing a unique SPC title valid across the EU; the own-initiative report also suggests the extension of the EPO’s mandate, so that examination of SPC applications could be carried out on the basis of unified rules.

Other important points needing attention to improve the presence of generic and biosimilar medicines in the EU are the abuse of divisional patent applications and patent linkage, which should also see an intervention by the Commission. The Parliament also opened the possibility of a revision of the Bolar exemption, which allows clinical trials on patented products needed to reach marketing authorisation of a generic or biosimilar version not to be regarded as infringements of patent rights or SPCs. This may also support the immediate market entry after the expiration of patent rights and SPCs. The Commission is called also to ensure the effectiveness and better coordination of compulsory licensing in order to provide access to medicines needed in case of health emergencies.

The resolution also addresses the theme of standard essential patents, which currently often leads to litigations, and it calls for the revision of the 20-years old system for design protection. Transparency on results obtained from publicly funded R&D is also recommended. The Parliament suggests artificial intelligence (AI) and blockchain technologies may play an important role in tackling counterfeiting practices and guarantee traceability of goods, as they may contribute to a better enforcement of intellectual property rights along the whole supply chain. The Commission should also work to establish clearer criteria for the protection of inventions created by the AI, without human intervention.

Comments from the industry

The European Parliament has clearly voted for a strong and fair IP system by underlining the importance of timely generic and biosimilar medicine competition. The misuse of divisional patents, the need to enlarge the scope of bolar to include API and all regulatory and administrative steps, and the long overdue ban anti-competitive patent linkage are well known problems that the Commission should address in the IP Action Plan. The Parliament has voted; the Commission must act.”, said Adrian van den Hoven, Director General at Medicines for Europe.

A major point in the implementation of the new European policies is represented by the review the Commission is going to conduct in 2024 to assess the effective achievement of goals of the SPC manufacturing waiver, which entered into force in July 2019 and is expected to start producing effects in the second half of 2022.

Many of the themes discussed in the Parliament’s resolution were debated during a webinar organized by Medicines for Europe, with the participation of representatives from the European Commission and the European Patent Office.

EFPIA, representing the innovator pharmaceutical industry, focused its attention on the impact of past EU Free Trade Agreements (FTAs) on drug spending, timing of countries’ access to new medicines after global launch, investments overall and in pharmaceuticals, and clinical trial participation. A report by IQVIA published in the Federation’s website addresses the impact of IP protection on these elements. Results confirm the central role of the pharmaceutical sector as the most R&D intensive industry in the world, with R&D spending averaging over 15% of revenue. A strong IP protection framework available at the level of EU FTAs favours the attractiveness for investments in the EU and its FTA partner countries. According to the report, an expanded IP protection appears not to be linked to the generation of a higher pharmaceutical spending; drugs’ share of healthcare spending is claimed to stay flat or fall after an FTA, and prices for medicines to rise more slowly than the level of inflation. A stronger IP index, adds IQVIA, is also correlated with increased clinical trial activity in a country, bringing both clinical and economic benefits.