Home Authors Posts by Giuliana Miglierini

Giuliana Miglierini

208 POSTS 0 COMMENTS

Towards the harmonisation of clinical evaluation of medical devices

The roadmap towards the harmonisation of the clinical evaluation of medical devices at the international level has been formally undertaken by China, acting as rotating president of the 13th International Medical Device Regulators Forum (IMDRF), held in Shanghai on March 20th -22nd.

In this occasion, China submitted to the IMDRF management committee the proposal of a new project addressing the “Clinical Evaluation of Medical Devices”, that was accepted unanimously by the Committee. The project, wrote the China Food and Drug Administration (CFDA) in a statement on its website, “is a historic breakthrough since China has changed its role from a participant to a leader in the rulemaking of international standards recognition in the medical devices area. It also marks new progress made by China in continuously and in-depth promoting the Chinese experience in medical device standards management”.

As a result, according to the CFDA, a collaborative research should be implemented on the basic requirements of clinical trial decision making and evaluation through isotropic reasoning and the acceptance of data from overseas clinical trials. According to Raps’ Regulatory Focus, the proposed clinical evaluation work item has been designed in collaboration with the Global Medical Technology Alliance (GMTA)
The effort promoted by Chinese regulatory authorities shall also update the list of international standards in the field of medical devices recognised by IMDRF members since 2014. Similarities and differences in policies and techniques used by IMDRF members while adopting or recognising international standards shall be also analysed, in order to identify the best practices at the international level which can be applied to the mutual recognition of standards. The final goal of the exercise, according to CFDA, is to reach harmonisation of international medical devices regulations.

Registries to support regulatory decision making

IMDRF also published on march 27th the document “Tools for Assessing the Usability of Registries in Support of Regulatory Decision-Making”, that follows the work the IMDRF Registry Working Group started in 2014. The group issued already two other documents, the “Principles of International System of Registries Linked to Other Data Sources and Tools” in September 2016 and the “Methodological Principles in the Use of International Medical Device Registry Data” in August 2016.

The new guidance is intended to facilitate regulators and other interested parties to properly use registry-generated data for initial device approval, expanded/broadened indications, post-market studies and surveillance, development of objective performance criteria (OPCs) and/or performance goals, device tracking and field safety correction actions. The level of evidence to be provided for regulatory assessment varies, in general, from the more robust for initial indications to a less robust one to support device surveillance. Each single device has to be clearly and unambiguously identified, possibly by mean of the Unique Device Identifier (UDI).
Other important features to be addressed include a proper governance structure of the registries, the compliance with national and international laws on data protection, handling and sharing, availability of standard operating procedures (SOPs) for the collection of data, a transparent policy governing the potential conflicts of interest related to the collection and analysis of registry data (to be published on the registry’s website), a transparent policy and procedures governing data access and use by interested parties. Furthermore, regulatory authorities have to be able to easily contact and access the registries in order to verify the essential information needed for their decision making. Regulators shall also check if the individual variables collected by the registries are sufficient in the number and scope to be used for regulatory purposes; the document provides a detailed list of data that form the minimal requirements to be available with this respect.
IMDRF also suggests that registries adhere to internationally and/or nationally recognised standards and harmonisation of the Common Data Models (CDM). Linkability to other data sources is also encouraged to enrich data available for regulatory assessment, but this might be limited by national legislations. A table is also provided in Appendix 1 to summarise the proposed areas that might be particularly useful for an assessment of regulatory use.

A consultation is open on the standards optimisation

Just few days after the IMDRF meeting in Shanghai, on March 26th, the IMDRF Standards Working Group also released the document “Optimizing Standards for Regulatory Use”, which is open to consultation up to 24 May 2018. Interested parties can forward their comments using the template available on IMDRF’s dedicated webpage.
According to the draft document, the current value of standards is limited from the regulatory perspective because, for example, “some standards do no sufficiently contemplate conformity assessment testing needs”. A too high flexibility and unclear expectations are other issues to be considered. The suggestion of the Working Group is that standards should be built starting from the consideration of how medical devices are regulated, “so that a firm’s declaration of conformance with it will inspire reviewers’ confidence and streamline the approval process”.
IMDRF also underlines an uneven participation and representation of regulatory authorities in the standards development processes run by the International Organisation for Standardisation (ISO), the International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC) and their corresponding national/mirror committees.
Consensus standard should be the key operative tool to achieve a robust regulatory framework based on these considerations, suggests the IMDRF Working Group, as it should “demonstrate adherence to ‘transparency, openness, impartiality, effectiveness and relevance, coherence, due process and technical assistance,’ among other principles”. The indication made by IMDRF favour consensus standards accepted at the global level, and indicates that other regional, national and consortia standards may result particularly useful with respect to emerging technologies.

The essential principles

The IMDRF guidance provides a description of the high-level criteria that should be kept in mind while writing standards which had to reflect a regulatory need. They should always present a close relationship of the scope with one or more of the IMDRF Essential Principles. Each standard should also specify the existence of test methods for determining compliance with each of the requirements, and the definition of clear acceptance criteria for determining that each technical requirement is met. Standard’s requirements should always be expressed with references to performance. Other characteristics that should be considered relates to a fair participation of all stakeholders, including regulators, in standards development, compatibility with the internationally accepted principles of safety and performance of medical devices, reflection of the state of art technology in a certain field, promotion of economic benefits through streamlining regulatory activities and harmonising expectations across different countries and regions, completeness of the standard within its scope, availability of verifiable objective measurements, consistency of terms and symbols across standards, a clear, unambiguous and easily understood form and ease of access to all relevant stakeholders.
IMDRF’s guidance also provide detailed description on how to optimise standards contents and suggestions on how to enhance stakeholder participation at the international, regional and national level, also at the level of mirror committees. These are the instances which should deserve a particular attention, as they represent a key point to intercept emerging needs and opportunities and propose new work items to address those needs. Annex B of the IMDRF’s guidance also provide regulators with suggestions on how to identify relevant committees that might benefit from a direct participation of regulatory authorities to standards development. Regulators are also solicited to pro-actively forward comments and to enter the process as early as possible in order to provide their expertise; the New Work Item Proposal (NWIP) stage is suggested by the guideline in order to maximise regulatory utility. IMDRF also proposes itself as a resource and mediator between regulators and organisations in charged of standards development: a sort of “hub for communicating needs and priorities in both directions”.

The impact on EU regulation for medical devices

The work started with the publishing of the IMDRF guidance might result in future years in the revision of regulations detailing the approval processes for medical devices in the different geographical areas. The relevant European reference is EU Regulation 2017/745 on Medical devices, which at point 20 of the preamble states that “the definitions in this Regulation, regarding devices themselves, the making available of devices, economic operators, users and specific processes, the conformity assessment, clinical investigations and clinical evaluations, post-market surveillance, vigilance and market surveillance, standards and other technical specifications, should be aligned with well-established practice in the field at Union and international level in order to enhance legal certainty”. Point 24 of the preamble also adds that common specifications should be developed after consulting the relevant stakeholders and taking account of European and international standards. This statements fits well into the framework depicted by the IMDRF guidance
Article 8 of the European regulation on medical devices discusses in detail the use of harmonised standards, specifying the possibility to apply only those standards that had been published in the Official Journal of the European Union in order to demonstrate conformity with requirements. The regulation also specify (art.9) that if no harmonised standards are available or sufficient, the Commission may adopt common specifications in respect of the general safety and performance requirements set out in Annex I.
Article 71.3 highlights points that Member States should assess during clinical evaluation of a medical device on the base of applicable common specifications or harmonised standards, in particular with relation to the safety and efficacy of the device and to risk-minimisation for both patients and users. Article 105.e also might indicate the Medical Devices Coordination Group (MDCG) as a possible EU representative acting in the framework identified by the IMDRF guidance, as it is deputed to “contribute to the development of device standards, of common standards, and of scientific guidelines, including product specific guidelines, on clinical investigation of certain devices in particular implantable devices and class III devices”.

An EU report on cross-border cooperation in healthcare

The European Commission has issued a new study on cross-border cooperation in healthcare mapping EU-funded cooperation projects in the period 2007-2017. The resulting picture is highly fragmented across different European geographic regions, with the great part of projects run in Central and Western Europe. The document also offers guidance to local and regional authorities and other parties interested in starting health-related cooperation projects, together with a toolkit to help implement the new initiatives.

The reviewing action was launched in September 2015 during the informal meeting of EU’s ministers of Health in Luxembourg, with the goal to analyse strengths and opportunities for future cross-border collaborations in healthcare (CBHC, as defined by chapter IV of the EU directive 2011/24/EU). This sort of collaborative efforts are driven by existing EU funded projects as well as by bilateral or multilateral agreements in place between specific countries. The report considered projects run in the EU/EEA area plus Switzerland; the project identified a total of 1.167 CBHC initiatives, among which 423 met the selection criteria to be included into the final analysis.

As the same European Commission states in the document, the study suffers two main limitations that have to be considered for a proper interpretation of results. A first point is the discrepancy between the high commitment of stakeholders and experts in the field and the low number of respondents (just ten) to the survey on the importance  and  certainty  of  driving factors. The fragmentation of the geographic region (and of the corresponding reference welfare systems) induces a further element of uncertainty. The second issue refers to the fact that no factors were identified as being of high importance and high uncertainty; this is the case, for example, of technology uptake and  innovative capacity, which have been linked to an high degree of unpredictability but not to high impact driving factors.

Seven key lessons for the future of the European healthcare

The report from the European Commission will also represent a fundamental base to address the revision of the current EU’s healthcare model in order to better reflect the changing environment and emerging needs that will characterise future years. The analysis has been based on seven “key lessons” learned from cross-border cooperation in healthcare projects, which highlight some important issues to be kept in mind while planning new initiatives.
A first point is the importance of similar welfare traditions or close historical ties among different countries to make CBHC initiatives more effective in regions where ease of cooperation is already established. Transaction costs of CBHC can be reduced if support is provided to key players, such as regional policy-makers or hospital managers. The toolbox delivered with the report is specifically addressed to meet this objective.
Several possible scenarios to implement new healthcare models in the EU are also depicted (see below), among which the Commission indicates the creation of regional networks as the most realistic one, as they allow to address the specific needs of the different geographic areas and present lower management costs while providing homogeneous services. The drawbacks of this approach are represented by the small scale and the possibility that it would generate inequalities between citizens living in different regions.
The monitoring of the initiatives run in the decade 2007-2017 also showed the preferential EU funding of CBHC initiatives in the fields of knowledge sharing and management (50% of the projects) and shared treatment and diagnosis of patients (23%). The economic and social benefits are more clear for collaborations focused on high-cost capital investments (5%) and emergency care (6%), but these categories require also the availability of more formalised terms of cooperation. Finally, CBHC projects could also help achieving a good level of information on the effectiveness and sustainability of current initiatives, that is still scarce according to the report.

The main trends

Regional similarities would help addressing administrative hurdles for both patients and providers/purchasers in order to achieve lower transaction costs. Key to this is the ease of communication and the ability to adapt reimbursement procedures, as well as the administrative ones, in order to successfully exchange healthcare staff (12% of the projects) and timely access to emergency care in the respective patients’ mother tongue. Only the 4% of projects involved knowledge production and research about cross-border healthcare.
Strong cross-border collaboration has been identified between Romania and Hungary in Eastern Europe, Germany/Netherlands and Germany/Denmark in Central/Western Europe, Norway/Sweden in the Scandinavian region, Spain/France in the Pyrenées region and Italy, Slovenia and Austria in the South of the Continent. A sharp increase of CBHC occurred in 2011, when the Patients’ Rights Directive was issued. In some instances the main driver has been identified with lower costs of service provision abroad, such as in the case of Finland and Estonia or Austria and Hungary.

Four scenarios for the future

The creation of regional healthcare networks is not the only scenario envisaged for the next two decades, on the base of the SWOT analysis at the base of the Commission’s report.
The easiest solution is to maintain the status quo, where cooperation between national healthcare systems is encouraged. Regional and local needs are central to the second scenario, where regions themselves represent the main driver for cooperation. Another hypothesis sees the patient choice as the key element for CBHC developments, supported by eHealth initiatives: a possibility that, according to the Commission, might be reserved to selected groups of patients or diseases. Strategic networks of selective collaboration is another possibility to achieve cooperation only in specific areas of high medical need. A final suggestion considers the central role of Member States’ payers organisations to launching and maintaining CBHC.

The Cross-border Care Manual & Tool

The Cross-border Care Manual & Tool included into the report consists of five modules discussing, respectively, project preparation, project development, contracting, project monitoring and successful business cases for cross-border collaboration. The first four modules offers a choice of 40 tools to help the management of CBHC, while the last chapter provides five case studies in different areas of activity (workforce and training, emergency care, high-cost capital investment, knowledge sharing/management and treatment/diagnostics).
The final objective is to help interested parties to find the most suitable tools with respect to the specific situation, as “there is no ‘one-size-fits-all’ concept for cross-border collaboration in healthcare”. Projects strongly depend on their specific geography, culture, healthcare systems and the experiences of stakeholders who initiate them. Six different types of collaboration are described by the report.

Fraud and fraud mitigation in cross-border healthcare

The prevention of frauds is also an important feature to be considered while planning a cross-border cooperation project. According to the Commission, the scale of the phenomenon in the healthcare sector is still unclear, but “there is no reason to assume that fraud in CBHC exceeds the extent of fraud in other health care settings”. The suggestion made by the document is to prioritise prevention activities related to patients, namely with respect to the European Healthcare Insurance Card (EHIC), the S2 form route or insurance frauds.
Communication between competent institutions has been also identified as an important fraud mitigation factor in CBHC, in addition to systems for monitoring and control and adequate legal competences of healthcare professionals. Motivations, behaviour of the various healthcare actors, social perception of illegality and differences between healthcare systems should also be taken into account while developing CBHC fraud prevention mechanisms.

Spain: An Office to support innovation and knowledge of medicinal products

Innovation in pharmaceutical sciences comes not only from R&D activities run internally by pharma and biotech companies. University labs and innovative, small-size start-up companies are nowadays the main contributors of innovative and early stage technologies, that are developed mainly with the financial support of public funds, i.e. EU funded projects. Only the most promising approaches are also sustained by private capitals, that may assume the form of venture capitals supporting the creation of a start-up or see the direct contribution of a pharmaceutical company by mean of a strategic collaboration agreement. Furthermore, current models of pharmaceutical development approach the planning of the regulatory strategy at a very early phase in order to optimise study design, data collection and, consequently, time-to-market. This is putting a major risk on activities run into the academic contests, where regulatory knowledge might be insufficient to properly address all issues and requirements needed to obtain results from clinical studies that are truly suited to be used for regulatory purposes.

A specialised Office of the AEMPS that follows the European model

Spain is characterised by a very pro-active R&D sector in life sciences, including for example one of the main biotech research district in Europe, the BioRegion Cataluña around Barcelona. To sustain the integration and coordination of different activities targeted to clinical research and run by academic centres, independent investigators, cooperative groups, hospitals, research foundations or companies, in 2016 the Spanish Agency of Medicines and Medical Devices (AEMPS) created the Spanish Office for Support of Innovation and Knowledge of Medicinal Products (OSIKMP).
The approach to promote innovation used by the Spanish authority follows examples at the European level, such as the PRIME scheme (PRIority Medicines) and the EMA’s Innovation Task force (ITF). The first one is managed by the European Medicines Agency and supports the development of medicines for unmet medical need. Companies may adhere to the PRIME scheme under a voluntary base to access enhanced interaction and early dialogue with the regulatory agency. Scientific advice and accelerated assessment are at the core of PRIME’s activities, as well as they are central to the Spanish OSIKMP. Up to February 22nd, 2018 (date of the last report published by EMA), the CHMP granted 35 positive recommendations on PRIME eligibility, denied other 128 requests (plus 7 out-of-scope ones). Oncology and haematology are the main therapeutic areas interested by the granted requests of access to the program (12 and 7 projects, respectively).
EMA’s Innovation Task Force (ITF) is a multidisciplinary group that includes scientific, regulatory and legal competences created to provide early dialogue with applicants – particularly SMEs and academic institutions – on innovative aspects in medicines development. It evaluates the impact of emerging therapies and technologies, identifies the need for specialised expertise at an early stage and supports other Committees of the Agency in decisions regarding eligibility to procedures, borderline products and emerging therapies and technologies. The ITF also collaborates with the Innovation offices of the various national regulatory agencies, under the mandate of the EU-Innovation Network of October 2016.

The activities run by the OSIKMP

The Office for Support of Innovation and Knowledge of Medicinal Products offers to interested parties a 360° degrees collaboration – under a global perspective – to enhance the possibility of success of the technologies and products under development. The first of its four main goals is to favour the integration of its services into the wider structure of the European Union, something essential to guarantee a smooth transition to EU’s centrally managed regulatory procedures. R&D activities are also supported by scientific advice tailored on the specific needs of the applicants and products, from discovery along the entire life cycle of a new medicinal product. Pre-access activities are intended to favour the production of high quality data from clinical trials and to ensure the availability of compassionate use schemes and registries. After authorisation, parallel advices is integrated with HTA at the national level, and therapeutic positioning reports – or the recommendations of access under different conditions from those authorised – are developed together with Spain’s Autonomous Communities.
Information and access to the services offered by the OSIKMP can be requested very simply by sending an e-mail to the address INNOV@aemps.es. The Office covers any kind of medicinal product at the initial stage of development. The Office uses various modalities to interact with partners, from face-to-face meetings to individual teleconferences, from simple consultations to collective sessions or courses. During this phase of the consultancy the adhering partner should be able to reach a better understanding of the degree of innovation of its projects, acquiring deeper knowledge of the most appropriate regulatory tools available and how to integrate the regulatory development into the European system for authorisation, or using other support tools at a national level.
The Independent Clinical Research Support Office of the AEMPS provides information and support to plan and perform non-commercial clinical trials. The Office facilitates the interaction of the investigators with the regulatory authority and provides regulatory or scientific support for the application, authorisation or classification of a clinical trial. The OSIKMP allows also to access the AEMPS’s national scientific advice unit, providing opinions on the general development of medicinal products or studies designed to improve knowledge of a medicinal product once authorised. The unit is also the point of contact to access the EMA’s procedure of scientific advice.

EMA’s and FDA’s 2018 Work Plans

The new year saw the publication by EMA and FDA of the draft list of activities the two agencies planned to carry out in 2018. In Europe, the European Parliament expressed in favour of Amsterdam as the final location of the European Medicines Agency (EMA); the relocation project has entered the operative phase, centered on the availability of the temporary seat by 1° January 2019 and of the definitive Vivaldi building by mid November 2019, and it will be closely monitored by the new tracking tool available on EMA’s web site.
In the US, after President Trump announced one year ago his intention to deregulate the FDA and the pharmaceutical sector, FDA’s Commissioner Dr Scott Gottlieb has already put in place many new initiatives intended to speed up approval times of both drug products and medical devices, as well as to increment the number of generic and biosimilars available on the US’s market. “While we don’t have the authority to regulate prices, we do have the authority — and the responsibility — to ensure that the agency’s policies are not impeding competition that could ultimately be a check to rising drug prices and patient access. Our role as gatekeeper of cost-effective, high-quality generic drug products is a foundational part of fostering human and animal drug competition”, wrote Scott Gottlieb.

EMA’s workplans for 2018

The European Medicines Agency has published the “2018 Work Plan for the GMP/GDP Inspectors Working Group“, a document that might undergo modifications according to the needs established by the ongoing procedures to relocate the Agency to Amsterdam.
After the public consultation in October 2016, the publication of the final “Guideline on the sterilisation of the medicinal product, active substance, excipient and primary container” is expected for Q2 2018. A six months open consultation on the “Guideline on the manufacture of the finished dosage form (V)” should be launched in Q1 2018, and the one on the “Guideline on quality of water for pharmaceutical use (H+V)” in Q3.
Two GMP draft guidelines are both expected to be released by Q4 2018: the final text of the “GMP Guide: Annex 21” regarding the importation of medicinal products should be sent to the European Commission for final approval, while the “GMP and Marketing Authorisation Holders” guideline should pass through the publication of a Reflection Paper on the relationship between GMP Compliance and the respective responsibilities and activities of marketing authorisation holders and manufacturing authorisation holders.
Other GMP guidelines are expected to undergo revision, namely EMA should provide the European Commission with a final text of the “GMP Guide: Introductions” in order to reflect recent changes to the legal basis for GMP affecting the overall structure of EU GMP guidance, including authorised products, IMPs, ATMPs and active substances. By the end of the year are also expected amendments or publication of Q&A for the following GMP Guides: Chapter 1 (Pharmaceutical Quality System), Chapter 4 (Documentation), Annex 1 (Manufacture of Sterile Medicinal Products) and Annex 11 (Computerised Systems).
Inspection activities will be focused on the development of procedures and co-ordination with respect to centrally authorised products and plasma master files for third-country blood establishments; a better use of resources should be reached through an improved sharing of information from international regulatory authority partners and the implementation of other risk-based approaches. Inspections of active substance manufacturers will be afforded on the base of the knowledge gained from the equivalency assessments involved in the listing of third countries by virtue of Article 111b of Directive 2001/83/EC. Joint audits will be also ensured within the frameworks of the PIC/S (Pharmaceutical Inspection Convention/Co-operation Scheme) and Mutual Recognition Agreement (MRA).
The IWG will be also involved in the revision of GMP provisions in the context of ‘disruptive innovation’ and in the preliminary activities necessary to support the Commission to prepare for EU enlargement. From the legislative point of view, a particular attention shall be paid to assess the impact of the Clinical Trials Regulation on GMP inspections and related activities, and on the development of new legislation for veterinary medicinal products.
According to the “COMP work plan 2018”, activities in the field of orphan medicines will focus on the implementation of Articles 3, 5 and 7 of Regulation (EC) No 141/2000, on improving the quality of initial orphan designation applications and in ensuring consistency, transparency, quality and detail of the COMP’s opinions on significant benefit at the time of marketing authorisation.
The COMP plans to implement OMARs (Orphan maintenance assessment reports) for all MAA procedures including the reassessments at extension of indication, checking for the utility and content of the new tool by end of Q2 2018 with external stakeholders. Other activities will be aimed to improve recommendations and guidance to sponsors, with regard to initial orphan designation, maintenance and type II variations. It will be also evaluated the possibility to create a new guidance to replace the “COMP recommendation on elements required to support the medical plausibility and the assumption of significant benefit for an orphan designation”. Other points of action include working on the prevalence methodology, analysis of non-clinical models, new online tools to handle procedures and a better understanding of similarities and differences between the concepts of significant benefit and added therapeutic value as used by HTAs.
Also the Safety Working Party (SWP) published its Work plan for 2018. Several draft guidelines should be object of public consultation (i.e. the ones on the non-clinical evaluation of radiopharmaceuticals, on the qualification of non-genotoxic impurities and a Reflection paper on non-clinical requirements for plasma-derived replacement therapies). A Q&A document on the implementation of risk based prevention of cross contamination in production and a Reflection paper providing an overview of the current regulatory testing requirements and opportunities for implementation of the 3Rs are expected to reach final release during the year. A detailed list of guidelines undergoing revision, many of which are ICH guidelines, is also provided.

The new American way

We also are modernizing how we work with innovators throughout the development process to bring products to patients more efficiently, using the best available science”, wrote Scott Gottlieb in an editorial published in January in the FDA’s blog. Among the main initiatives carried out by the Agency in 2017, the Commissioner remembered the approval of the first-ever gene therapy product and the field of individualized medicine, with new draft guidance for the development of treatments that address genetic mutations. “This collective progress reflects a fundamental shift in science that’s enabling us to attack more diseases with novel platforms”, wrote Scott Gottlieb. A shift that needs innovative regulatory approaches to regulate highly novel areas of science like gene therapy, targeted medicine, cell-based regenerative medicine, and digital health.
In the field of generic medicines, FDA granted also some tentative approvals, which do not allow the applicant to market the generic drug product and postpones the final approval until all patents/exclusivity issues have expired. Medical devices have gained an increased relevance as therapeutic tool (95 approval in 2017), and have benefited of the application of the “least burdensome standard” for generating critical information needed to evaluate the opportunity to conduct post-clinical studies to favour patients access to new, breakthrough devices.
The new policy framework established by FDA’s Commissioner also includes the possibility for certain diagnostic tests to undergo review by accredited third parties. A pilot program was also launched to evaluate how to regulate digital health devices.
The sharing of information between all stakeholders, including patients, is also central to FDA’s new policies: new searchable databases have been created to better inform patients and health care professionals of adverse events, and new programs for post-marketing surveillance have been set in place.
The FDA’s Unified Agenda (Fall 2017 edition) adds other new priorities of action for 2018, including advancing biosimilar policies, modernising the sector of over-the-counter products (OTC), and better informing women about health issues and risk factors. The detailed “Guidance Agenda”, providing the detailed list of new and revised draft guidances expected for 2018, has been published by the Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER).
According to an earlier editorial by Scott Gottlieb, 2018 will see the FDA working to improve the quality of medicines, with a particular focus on the activities of outsourcing facilities. The Agency also plans to introduce new national standards for the licensing of prescription drug wholesale distributors and third-party logistics providers, as part of track-and-trace requirements.
Informed decisions by patients will be pursued by the proposal of a new type of patient medication document for prescription drugs and biologics. FDA is also planning to expand the scope of non-prescription drug products, for example through the use of self-selection questions on a mobile medical app prior to permitting access to the drug. “We will be proposing to allow certain innovative approaches for demonstrating that a drug product can be used safely and effectively in a nonprescription setting”, wrote Scott Gottlieb.
Another important area to be addressed by the FDA is the modernisation of standards in order to better reflect the latest science. Efforts towards the harmonisation of global standards and of the FDA’s requirements for accepting foreign clinical data for new medical devices have been announced by the Commissioner. Devices and veterinary drugs shall also benefit the possibility to use electronic submission procedures. Commissioner Gottlieb also announced the intention to remove an outdated inspection provisions for biologics and outdated drug sterilization requirements.

The increasing role of China in the scientific and pharmaceutical sectors

While UK’s Government is dealing with the negotiations to handle the challenging issue of the Brexit, from the regulatory perspective the UK’s Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) is preparing to face the new scenario for the pharma business based in Britain. A scenario that shall see a stronger collaboration with geographic areas different from Europe, as acknowledged by the ‘Memorandum of Understanding on Medicine and Device Regulation’ signed with China in February 2018.

The new agreement expands the goals of the previous one signed in 2014: it will thus be possible not only to exchange safety information on medicines and medical devices between UK and China. The new Memorandum also focuses on the exchange of learning from the accelerated access review (AAR) and on the identification of innovative tools to effectively regulate the trading of medicines online. The Memorandum was signed during a visit to China by MHRA’s Chief Executive Dr Ian Hudson and the representatives of the China Food and Drug Administration (CFDA), at the presence of both Prime Minister Theresa May and China’s Premier Li Keqiang.

China, an emerging scientific leader

China is no more just a supplier of low cost active pharmaceutical ingredients and excipients to be used by Western pharma companies: the most innovative immunotherapeutic approaches, such as CAR-T cell therapy, are already under clinical experimentation on Chinese patients; upon checking of the clinicaltrials.gov database, there are currently 155 CAR-T studies in China, both completed and recruiting.
According to a paper published in the Journal of Hematology & Oncology in October 2017, the main target antigen of Chinese’s CAR-T studies is CD19, a cellular receptor that plays an important role in blood tumours such as leukemias and lymphomas. Other targets for liquid tumours under clinical investigation using this innovative approach include CD20, CD22, CD30, CD33, BCMA, CD123, CD138 and Lewis Y receptors. The possibility to use CAR-T therapy to treat solid malignancies is also widely studied in Chinese hospitals, i.e. for hepatocellular carcinoma, lung squamous cell carcinoma, pancreatic and liver tumours, various types of gastro-intestinal and cerebral cancers.
According to Bloomberg, a first Chinese commercial CAR-T cell therapy produced by Shangai’s Innovative Cellular Therapeutics Co. is already available at the resort island of Hainan, a free-trade zone for medical tourism, at a price per treatment (490,000 yuan, equal to $76,000) much lower than the products approved in the US (Novartis’ Kymriah, $475,000 for a single treatment, and Kite Pharma’s Yescarta, $373,000 per treatment).
The increasing importance of China as a world leader in scientific production is also acknowledged by the ‘Science & Engineering Indicators 2018‘, the annual report published by the US’s National Science Board (NSB) of the National Science Foundation. For the first time in 2016 China, still considered by the report a ‘developing country’, overtook the US as per number of scientific articles published in all fields of science: 426,165 for China (+124% compared to 2006) vs 408,985 for US (+6,7%). All other countries are far behind; significantly the third place is hold by another emerging country, India (110,320 papers published in 2016, +186% vs 2006). According to the report, the United States were still the largest R&D-performing country in 2015, with gross domestic expenditures on R&D of $497 billion, (26% of the global total), and an R&D-to-GDP ratio of 2.7%. But China is closely behind, with R&D expenditures of $409 billion (21% global share) and an R&D-to-GDP ratio of 2.1%.

A new regulatory framework

The importance of the pharmaceutical business for the strategical growth of China is also reflected by the new drug-approval system announced in October 2017 by the Chinese Government. From the manufacturing perspective, the increased number of CFDA’s inspectors and the improved adherence to international standards for pharmaceutical production should reduce the quality gap between the Chinese pharma industry and the international scenario. China joined the ICH as its eighth regulatory member in June 2017; the CFDA also joined the ICH’s Pharmaceutical Inspection Cooperation Scheme as an observer, reported the FDA. The Chinese regulatory agency also announced the possibility for pharmaceutical companies to run phase I safety studies in China even if no similar studies have been yet conducted in other countries, as reported by Nature: a provision that will greatly enhance the possibility for multinational pharma companies to access without delay the Chinese market with innovative options of treatment. Domestic manufacturers shall also benefit from the shorter approval times, and an increasing number of new medicinal products directly originated by the Chinese R&D might also enter the global scenario in the incoming years. In the mean time, many major pharmaceutical companies (i.e. Lilly, Glaxo and Novartis) decided to close their R&D presence in China in favour of a more central approach. A move that, according to Bloomberg, might leave more space open for venture capitals and private equity funds interested in investing in new projects in China.

A fast-increasing pharmaceutical market

The reform of the Chinese regulatory framework also includes a compulsory-licensing system; according to Bloomberg, the local government might also explore a new system linking drug approvals to patent status. The IP protection scenario of the Asiatic giant is still far behind the standards typical of more advanced economies, as represented respectively by USPTO in the United States and the EPO in Europe. This weakness remains to be fully addressed by Chinese authorities in order to complete the roadmap towards a more ‘Western-like’ industrial infrastructure.
China was the second largest pharmaceutical market in the world in 2016, with its 1.38 billion inhabitants, according to a report from the US’s Department of Commerce, and it is expected to reach $167 billion by 2020 (+54,6% vs 2015). Public and private healthcare expenditure should reach $1.1 trillion by 2020, and pharmaceutical expenditure ($108 billion) is currently representing 17% of the total health one ($78 per person). According to the report, the market is dominated by generic medicines (64% of the total sales), while products still covered by patents represent just the 22% of the market. At least the 95% of Chinese people are covered by some form of insurance, to reach the Government’s target of an universal health insurance.

An update on orphan medicines and rare diseases

Medicinal products to treat rare diseases are one of the main targets of pharmaceutical R&D, as they allow companies to enter niche markets with highly priced innovative products, where to maintain exclusive rights for 10 years. But when does an orphan medicine stop to be ‘orphan’?. The question comes directly from the European Medicines Agency (EMA), that at the end of January 2018 published the first of its new “Orphan Maintenance Assessment Reports” (OMARs). The new initiative aims to closely monitor the evolution in the life of a medicinal product which received the ‘orphan drug’ designation and has been finally recommended for approval by EMA’s Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use (CHMP) under the specific regulatory framework applying to this type of medicines.
The new orphan maintenance assessment reports – the first one relates to Merck Sharp & Dohme’s anti-viral drug Prevymis (letermovir) – will be published as a integral part of the European Public Assessment Report (EPAR). OMARs will discuss the “orphan” health condition and its severity, and will collect into a single document all the opinions – positive and not – on a certain product issued by the EMA’s Committee for Orphan Medicinal Products (COMP), also in the case the product would have been retired. The goal is to monitor how the diffusion of this health condition will vary with time, thus impacting the orphans status of the medicinal product. “The interaction with our stakeholders is a two-way street: they asked for more transparency, we listened to their needs and now we are delivering on our commitment,” explained Bruno Sepodes, the Chair of COMP. “Patients, as well as companies, will better understand the decision-making process once a medicine for a rare disease gets a marketing authorisation. And health technology assessment bodies (HTAs) might use this additional information when establishing the cost effectiveness of the medicine”.

The regulatory incentives for orphan medicines

The high R&D investments made by pharmaceutical companies to develop new products to treat rare diseases are rewarded by the ‘orphan status’ designation and possibly by the access to quicker regulatory approval procedures, so that patients may rapidly access innovations. And, even more important, the status of orphan medicine entitles the marketing authorisation holder to obtain a 10 years exclusivity on the market.
The definition of the ‘orphan status’ slightly varies between Europe and the United States. According to EMA’s criteria, in the EU the orphan designation can be applied to new medicines intended for the treatment, prevention or diagnosis of a disease that is life-threatening or chronically debilitating and that has a prevalence lower than 5 in 10,000, or if it is unlikely that marketing of the medicine would generate sufficient returns to justify the investment needed for its development. A further requirement specify that “no satisfactory method of diagnosis, prevention or treatment of the condition concerned can be authorised, or, if such a method exists, the medicine must be of significant benefit to those affected by the condition”. EMA’s COMP runs an assessment of the orphan status of drug’s candidates at the beginning of their development and before the final approval of the new product by the CHMP. But, as other new options of treatments might appear on the market during this time frame, the ‘orphan’ status of the candidate medicine might no longer reflect the above definition.
In February 2018 EMA published a new Q&A document, “Rare diseases, orphans medicines”, to help people solve some common misunderstandings about orphan designation and the possibility to access orphans medicines. Among other points, EMA highlights that 66% of the applicants gained orphan designation for their medicines and received the incentives to support their development, but only 8% of the medicines have actually reached the market as orphan medicines.
In the US, the Orphan Drug Act (ODA) represents the regulatory base for granting the status of ‘orphan drug’. According to the FDA’s Orphan Drug Designation program, orphans status is granted when the new product allows for “safe and effective treatment, diagnosis or prevention of rare diseases/disorders that affect fewer than 200,000 people in the U.S., or that affect more than 200,000 persons but are not expected to recover the costs of developing and marketing a treatment drug”. Several types of regulatory procedures are accessible to obtain approval for an orphan drug, depending on its specific target. The FDA’s Rare Pediatric Disease Priority Review Voucher Program, for example, is targeted to patients in the pediatric age, while the Humanitarian Use Device (HUD) program targets medical devices for the treatment or diagnosis of a disease or condition that affects or is manifested in not more than 8,000 individuals in the United States per year.

The numbers of rare diseases in the US

There are approx. 30 million people in the United States living with at least one of more than 7,000 rare diseases, stated FDA’s Commissioner Scott Gottlieb in the occasion of the Rare Diseases Day, on February 28th. In his editorial on FDA’s blog, Commissioner Gottlieb said that more than 650 therapies for rare diseases have been approved by the FDA during its history, plus 72 medical devices for an orphan indication. In 2017 the Agency received over 700 requests for orphans designation, the double vs 2012, and approved 80 new treatments. The US’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER) approved in 2017 18 novel drugs to treat orphan diseases (39% of total approvals); among these are the first new treatment for patients with sickle cell disease in almost 20 years and the first-ever non-blood product to treat patients with hemophilia A with inhibitors, according to the “2017 New Drug Therapy Approvals” report. Last year saw also the approval of the first treatments for adults diagnosed with giant cell arteritis and for the Batten disease, which can cause seizures, dementia, and a variety of other debilitating symptoms.
FDA’s Orphan Drug Designation Modernization Plan, launched in June 2017, innovated the regulatory approach and allowed the FDA to eliminate the backlog of orphan drug designation requests pending at the Agency. A 90-day timetable is now the US standard for processing new designation requests. FDA also established an Orphan Products Council to further address scientific and regulatory challenges related to orphan products.
Despite these successes, we recognize that thousands of rare diseases still have no approved treatments”, stated Scott Gottlieb. The increasing role of personalized medicine and genetic treatments shall also allow in future years to develop more specific therapeutic options for relatively more rare and ‘ultra-orphan’ diseases, affecting an extremely low number of persons. Commissioner Gottlieb also announced the intention to deeper understand the natural history (such as individual patient experiences and progression of symptoms) and clinical outcomes of rare diseases, through new models to be created using additional investments under the FDA’s 2019 budget. A new pilot for more efficient orphan designation requests, a new Memorandum of Understanding with the National Organization for Rare Disorders for a better inclusion of patients into discussions with the Agency and a public meeting to prepare for the changing landscape of orphan drug development are other top priorities of the US regulatory agency for this year.

The situation in Europe

About 30 million people is also suffering from a rare disease in Europe, according to the patients’ association Eurordis, 75% of them are children. Most rare diseases (about 80%) have a genetic origin.
According to the “Human medicines highlights 2017” published by EMA, 19 new orphan medicines received a positive opinion by the CHMP in 2017 (over a total of 92 products). Among these are Brineura, the first EU-approved medicine for neuronal ceroid lipofuscinosis type 2 (CLN2) disease, a very rare, fatal neurodegenerative condition in children, and Alkindi, a product for the treatment of primary adrenal insufficiency, a rare hormonal disorder in infants, children and adolescents. Other medicines which obtained approval for rare diseases included Oxervate, for the treatment of the rare neurotrophic keratitis of the eye, Qarziba for the treatment of high risk neuroblastoma, and Xermelo for the treatment of carcinoid syndrome. Qarziba and Brineura have been authorised “under exceptional circumstances”, using a regulatory procedure that allows patients access medicines that cannot be approved under a standard authorisation as comprehensive data on the product cannot be obtained due to the lack of a sufficient number of patients, the difficulty to ethically collect complete information on the efficacy and safety on the product, or the gaps in the scientific knowledge. These medicines are subject to specific post-authorisation obligations and monitoring. Two new orphans medicines have also been recommended by the CHMP in its February 2018 meeting: Amglidia (glibenclamide), for the treatment of very rare neonatal diabetes mellitus in newborns, infants and children, and Mylotarg (gemtuzumab ozogamicin) for the treatment of acute myeloid leukaemia in patients aged 15 years and above.

Differences in approval

A further element that might impact on the choice of companies sponsoring the approval of new medicines for rare disease is represented by the differences observed in the time to reach approval and on its specific contents between the main regulatory areas. These have been recently examined in a paper published in the European Journal of Clinical Pharmacology, which analysed 134 new drugs approved from 2007 to 2016 by FDA, EMA and Swissmedic (SMC). Almost the two thirds of them reached first approval in the US, another third in the EU and just a minority in Switzerland (3,0%). Approved new medicines were mainly antineoplastic and immunomodulating agents, followed by alimentary tract and metabolism drugs and anti-infectives for systemic use. EMA required a medium time of 5,4 months for approval, FDA 8,6 months, both lower than Swissmedic.
Almost half of the approved medicines showed differences in strength between the different agencies. Much significant are the differences observed in the approved indications, which occurred in 76,9% of cases; indications differed in 73,1% of new drugs approved by FDA and EMA, 64,9% with respect to SMC and FDA and 43,3% between SMC and EMA. In general terms, the Swiss regulatory authority demonstrated a more restrictive approach, and the sum of the two European representatives approved indications different that the ones approved by the FDA in 27,4% of cases. Observed differences relates to disease class, previous failed therapy, inappropriate alternative therapy or use in combination or monotherapy. Pediatric indications, something often relevant with respect to orphan medicines, occurred for 25 (18.7%) of the approved drugs.

A 3D bioprinting facility at Trinity College Dublin

0

The new Global Centre of Excellence for 3D bioprinting is a collaborative laboratory that is due to start activities at the Trinity College Dublin (Ireland) by the end of 2018. The initiative is at the centre of a new strategic collaboration singed between AMBER, the Science Foundation Ireland-funded materials science institute headquartered at Trinity, and Johnson & Johnson Services.


The facility will initially focus in orthopaedics, to then expand at al later stage its offer of internal scientific expertise. “Because of the fantastic success of the SFI Research Centre, AMBER, Ireland has a worldwide reputation for excellence in 3D bioprinting and is a global leader in materials science”, said Ireland’s Minister for Business, Enterprise and Innovation, Heather Humphreys.
The laboratory will be located into a 100m2 space within the Trinity Biomedical Sciences Institute (TBSI) building, comprising lab area suitable for working with bioprinting and cell and tissue culture and meeting and office space for 12 people. The collaborative research will join the forces of both Johnson & Johnson scientists and Trinity academician. The laboratory will be made available to other Principal Investigators, postgraduate and undergraduate students to carry out project work outside of the direct collaborative activity. This will benefit students by providing exposure to industry and the potential to source industry-defined projects. In addition, Johnson & Johnson scientists will be available to provide training and education to students and staff.
Building on our long-standing collaboration with DePuy Synthes in Ireland, I am confident that this engagement will become the prototypical strategic partnership for AMBER as the Centre moves into the next funding cycle. Our intent is to identify and grow similar engagements of equivalent scale and type across the ICT and manufacturing sectors”, said Professor Michael Morris, AMBER Director

A Global Commission to accelerate diagnosis in rare diseases

A new initiative has been jointly launched by Shire, Microsoft and the patients’ advocacy Eurordis-Rare Diseases Europe in order to accelerate diagnosis for children with rare diseases, a process that could now require up to five years to reach complete.
The “Global Commission to End the Diagnostic Odyssey for Children” (“the Global Commission”) is a strategic alliance aiming at improving the quality of the journey children and their parents living with a rare disease have to experience: it groups multi-disciplinary experts – among which are technology innovators, patient advocates, healthcare providers, researchers, family members and others – called to develop an actionable roadmap to help shorten the multi-year diagnostic journey. There are more than 6,000 identified rare diseases and it is estimated that rare diseases affect 300 to 350 million people worldwide. Many patients endure lifelong suffering and about half of all rare diseases begin in childhood.

The goals of the Global Commission

The Commission will address new recommendations focusing on core barriers preventing timely diagnosis. A particular attention will be paid to improving physicians’ ability to identify and diagnose patients with a rare disease in order to begin care and treatment, empowering patients and their families to have a more active role in their health care and providing high-level policy guidance to help achieve better health outcomes.
The Commission will be co-chaired by Flemming Ornskov (Chief Executive Officer, Shire), Simon Kos (Chief Medical Officer and Senior Director, Worldwide Health, Microsoft) and Yann Le Cam (Chief Executive Officer, Eurordis-Rare Diseases Europe). “As a physician with training in pediatrics, I’ve seen firsthand the devastating effect not having an accurate diagnosis can have on patients, their families, as well as on the health care providers working to help them. Accelerating the time to diagnosis is critical to improving outcomes for patients and health systems” said Ornskov.
The first roadmap from the Global Commission is expected to be published in early 2019, based on the inputs gathered since early 2018. ”Today, many children around the world are living with a rare disease that remains either undiagnosed or misdiagnosed. This can delay proper care and treatment and cause isolation, discrimination, social exclusion, and also contributes to a waste in human resources” said Le Cam.

Pre-seed investments in Israel for Merck

ExploreBio is the new pre-seed-investment vehicle targeted at funding biotech early-stage companies and providing also management services for proof-of-concept-experiments in biotechnology. Incubated companies will also be given the opportunity to work at Merck’s BioIncubator facilities in Yavne, Israel, operative since 2011. Interested parties should submit their investment proposal here.

Four partners to collaborate

The € 20 million-value initiative is a partnership between the strategic corporate venture capital arm of Merck and other three investors. Arkin Holdings is dedicated to empowering companies that create breakthrough pharma, biotech and medical device technologies. Pontifax is a venture capital firm founded in 2004 and focusing on groundbreaking innovations in life sciences, with over $350 million under management and a portfolio of about 50 companies working to address substantial unmet needs.
Founded in 2000, WuXi AppTec is a Chinese global pharmaceutical, biopharmaceutical, and medical device open-access capability and technology platform with global operations providing a broad and integrated portfolio of services throughout the drug R&D process.
ExploreBio aims to invest € 1 million to € 1.5 million per company across up to four investments per year over a period of five years. The early-stage companies would benefit from quick access to funding and easy access to follow-up capital.

According to Merck, a second advantage for the four partners is being able to leverage the consortium’s resources and their strong relationships to work with the investments more closely and effectively. The four founding companies have already collaborated to support different companies, such as Metabomed (targeted cancer therapy) and Artsavit (using apoptosis-induction to treat cancer).

Two new CRISPR’s patents for Merck

Merck also announced that the Israel Patent Office and the Korean Intellectual Property Office have each issued notices granting Merck’s patent applications for the company’s CRISPR technology used in a genomic-integration method for eukaryotic cells. These decisions mark the fifth and sixth patent allowances for Merck’s unique CRISPR technology following Singapore, Australia, the European Union, and Canada.

Acquisition for Roche in e-health records management

The Swiss big pharma company Roche has acquired the 100% shares of Flatiron Health, a New York (US) based private healthcare technology and services company focused in the development of oncology-specific electronic health record (EHR) software, as well as the curation and development of real-world evidence for cancer research. The transaction has a total value of $ 1,9 billion and it is expected to close in the first half of 2018. According to Roche, Flatiron Health will continue its operations as a separate legal entity.

This is an important step in our personalised healthcare strategy for Roche, as we believe that regulatory-grade real-world evidence is a key ingredient to accelerate the development of, and access to, new cancer treatments”, said Daniel O’Day, CEO Roche Pharmaceuticals.
Flatiron Health’s technological platform is designed to learn from the experience of every patient and is based on the set up of a large network of community oncology practices and academic medical centers across the US. According to O’Day, the acquired company is best positioned to provide the technology and data analytics infrastructure needed not only for Roche, but for oncology research and development efforts across the entire industry. Flatiron has a broad experience of collaboration with industry leaders and regulators to develop new approaches for how real-world evidence may be used in regulatory decision making, including the design and validation of novel endpoints. Currently, Flatiron partners with over 265 community cancer clinics, six major academic research centers and 14 out of the top 15 therapeutic oncology companies.

Newsstand

  • Supplement to n.5 - October 2025 NCF International n.2 - 2025
  • NCF International n.1 - 2025
  • Supplemento to n.9 - October 2024 NCF International n.3 - 2024