medicinal products

Subscribe to medicinal products

As part of the strategy to fight COVID-19, the European Commission has proposed a Regulation to facilitate the conduct of clinical trials using medicinal products containing or consisting of Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs).

The European Commission recognises that the applicable regulatory framework in relation to GMOs is unable to adequately address the challenges created by the pandemic. While some vaccines in development contain attenuated viruses or live vectors, which may fall within the definition of a GMO, there is uncertainty on the interactions between the GMO regulatory framework and the legislation on clinical trials and medicinal products. This is further aggravated by the absence of a common approach by the EU Member States.…
Continue Reading The European Commission proposes a Regulation for COVID-19 clinical trials conducted with medicinal products containing or consisting of GMOs

The Neurim CJEU decision of July 2012 has arguably caused an equal amount of excitement and controversy.  On the one hand, it seemed to open the door to supplementary protection certificates (SPCs) for second or further medical uses.  On the other, it seemed to go against a number of previous decisions.  On a strict literal interpretation of Article 3(d)[1] of the SPC Regulation[2], it should not be possible to obtain an SPC for new applications of old active ingredients that had already been the subject of a marketing authorisation.  In Neurim, based on a teleological interpretation to the SPC Regulation, the CJEU held that such an SPC could be validly granted.

A recent Opinion from Advocate General M. Giovanni Pitruzzella in the Santen SPC preliminary reference[3] urges the CJEU to expressly reject the Neurim decision, considering that the mere limitation of its application or marginalisation would not be a satisfactory option.

The facts in Santen

On 3 June 2015, Santen filed an SPC application relying on European Patent No. 057959306 as the basic patent in force (the “basic patent”) and on an EMA marketing authorisation granted on 19 March 2015 for the drug Ikervis (an eye drop emulsion containing the active ingredient ciclosporin used to treat severe keratisis).  The French National Institute of Industrial Property (“INPI”) rejected the application on the ground that a marketing authorisation had been previously issued for the same active ingredient for a medication called Sandimmun (an oral solution with several therapeutic indications including the eye disease uveitis, an inflammation of some or all of the uvea (the middle part of the eye)).

INPI held that the conditions in Neurim had not been satisfied for two reasons:

  • the basic patent was not limited to the severe keratisis indication – the claims included product only claims and claims to numerous other eye diseases; and
  • Santen had not demonstrated that the marketing authorisation constituted a ‘new therapeutic indication’ within the meaning of Neurim (for example, where the mode of action of the active ingredient differs or where the medical field differs).

Santen appealed the decision to the Paris Court of Appeal and it, in turn, decided to stay proceedings referring two preliminary questions to the CJEU.  The first question has asked the CJEU to consider how the concept of “different application” of an old active substance as understood in Neurim should be interpreted and the question provides a range of possible options from strict to broad interpretations.  The second question asks whether, in the context of determining whether the “[SPC application is] within the limits of the protection conferred by the basic patent” as understood in Neurim, the scope of the basic patent should be the same as the marking authorisation relied upon (i.e. it should be limited to the new medical use corresponding to the therapeutic indication of that marketing authorisation).

Less than six months after the preliminary reference was made by the Paris Court of Appeal, the CJEU had the opportunity to consider the scope and relevance of the Neurim decision in the Abraxis SPC case[4].  In that case the CJEU did not openly criticise the Neurim decision and, instead, limited its ramifications by referring to it as an “exception to the narrow interpretation of Article 3(d)” which “does not, in any event, refer to cases of new formulations of the product at issue”.

…
Continue Reading Santen SPC case: Advocate General Pitruzzella urges CJEU to reject Neurim

On 13 December 2019, the European Medicines Agency (“EMA”) published a Questions and Answers document (“Q&A”) providing guidance on the conduct of comparability exercise for advanced therapy medicinal products (“ATMPs”). The Q&A addresses various regulatory questions that arise in situations in which companies developing or marketing ATMPs introduce changes to the manufacturing process and need to generate related comparability data.

Background

EMA’s experience suggests that changes to the manufacturing of ATMPs are “frequent” and even more so in the development of the medicinal product. These changes need, however, to be introduced in accordance with the Good Manufacturing Practices (“GMP”). Moreover, the changes may require a variation of the marketing authorisation for authorised ATMPs or substantial amendments to the clinical trial protocol for ATMPs used in clinical trials.

In addition, the changes to the manufacturing of the ATMP must be supported by the data generated in a comparability exercise. This exercise should focus on the characteristics of the ATMP prior and after the introduction of the manufacturing change. This is valid for both investigational ATMPs and authorised ATMPs.

The position of the EMA is that changes to the manufacturing of the ATMP should not undermine or impact adversely the quality, efficacy or safety of the medicinal product or the related risk-benefit balance. The objective of the comparability exercise is to facilitate the assessment and demonstration of this.

…
Continue Reading EMA Guidance on Comparability Exercise for ATMPs

This is a follow up to our previous posts relating to the European Medicines Agency’s (EMA) various policies on access to documents. This continues to be an area of activity for the EMA and there have been a number of developments that have impacted the EMA’s position. Firstly, Brexit has directly affected one of the main pillars of the transparency activities of the EMA, namely the proactive publication of clinical trial data submitted by pharmaceutical companies in support of certain types of regulatory submissions to the Agency (the EMA’s Policy 0070).

Secondly, while the reactive transparency activities of the EMA relating to access to documents in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 (the EMA’s Policy 0043) have been less affected by Brexit, there may be other challenges for the EMA ahead.

…
Continue Reading Latest Developments in the Transparency Activities of the European Medicines Agency

On 3 June 2019, the European Medicines Agency (EMA) launched a public consultation on a draft guideline providing guidance on the quality dossier requirements for Drug-Device Combinations (DDCs) in the context of a marketing authorisation or post-authorisation application.

DDCs are human medicines that include a medical device. The guideline covers those devices that are necessary for the administration, dosing or use of the medicine. They can be integral, co-packaged or referred to in the product information of the medicine but supplied and obtained separately.

…
Continue Reading EMA releases draft guidelines on drug-device combinations

The case arose from the reimbursement by the Italian authorities of medicinal products used for an indication for which they are not authorised, in circumstances where there is an alternative authorised product available. Italian law permits the reimbursement of such products “provided that the [unlicensed] indication is known and is in line with research conducted by the national and international medical-scientific community on the basis of economic and suitability considerations”. In these cases the Italian Medicines Agency (AIFA) puts in place monitoring arrangements intended to protect patient safety.

Avastin® (bevacizumab), which is licensed for administration by intravenous infusion for various oncology indications, was added to the Italian reimbursement list in 2014, for intravitreal injection in the eye for the treatment of ophthalmology conditions, on the following conditions:

  • To ensure sterility, packaging of bevacizumab in single dose syringes must be carried out solely by hospital pharmacies satisfying defined requirements and following rules to ensure the doses are properly prepared.
  • The product can be administered only by highly specialised ophthalmological departments in designated public hospitals.
  • Administration may take place only once the patient has signed an informed consent, including the scientific reasons, accompanied by adequate information about the existence of approved alternative therapies at higher cost to the Italian health service.
  • A monitoring record must be created with an adverse reactions declaration form.

Novartis Farma challenged the inclusion of Avastin® in the reimbursement list on the basis that this was incompatible with EU pharmaceutical law. In particular: (i) the general use of medicinal products “off-label”, for financial reasons, in circumstances where the suitability of the licensed product for such use has not been tested, breaches the mandatory character of a marketing authorisation (MA) under Art 6 of Directive 2001/83/EC and is incompatible with Directive 89/105/EEC (the Transparency Directive); (ii) by allowing AIFA to establish monitoring mechanisms to safeguard patient safety, Italian law permits AIFA to encroach on the role of the EMA as established by Regulation No 726/2004; and, (iii) the repackaging of Avastin® does not comply with the conditions required for the exemption under Art 3.1 of Directive 2001/83/EC to apply.

The Italian Court referred four questions to the CJEU.

…
Continue Reading Novartis Farma SpA v AIFA