Upload
nguyendat
View
213
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
© LAWFORD DAVIES DENOON LTD 2010
ISCT Conference | 20 May 2011
Negotiating the Regulatory and IP Hurdles
James Lawford Davies & Alex Denoon
Overview
• hESC therapies are likely to face continuous scrutiny on
morality grounds
• In EU, this results in a more complex regulatory landscape
• Recent controversies re funding, IP and regulatory issues
• Detailed consideration of regulatory framework and protections
is merited
| 1ISCT - 20 May 2011
ISCT - 20 May 2011
Approaches to regulation (1)
1. Prohibitions or restrictions:
• Germany‟s 1990 Embryo Protection Act and Stem Cell Act of
2002 (as amended in 2008)
• Italy‟s Law 40/2004
2. Regulation or licensing:
• Victoria‟s Infertility Treatment Act 1995 (Australia)
• UK‟s Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990 (as
amended)
3. Guidance or self-regulation:
• China‟s 2003 joint MoH and MoST Ethical Guiding Principles for
hES cell research
4. No regulation
| 2
ISCT - 20 May 2011
Approaches to regulation (2)
“The only workable approach found has been the policy of
federal neutrality, whereby the federal government does not
prohibit embryo research, but also does not officially condone
it, encourage it, or support it with public funds”
(President‟s Council on Bioethics, 2003)
| 3
ISCT - 20 May 2011
Common rationales
• Public health and safety
• Welfare of the child and family considerations
• The status of the human embryo
• Regulation stems partly from consensus that embryos have
special status
• No consensus as to how that status defined or protected
• Inevitable compromise - unless research prohibited
| 4
ISCT - 20 May 2011 5
UK Regulation
• Human Fertilisation and
Embryology Authority (HFEA)
• Human Tissue Authority (HTA)
• Medicines and Healthcare
products Regulatory Agency
(MHRA)
ISCT - 20 May 2011
Common rationales
• Public health and safety
• Welfare of the child and family considerations
• The status of the human embryo
• Regulation stems partly from consensus that embryos have
special status
• No consensus as to how that status defined or protected
• Inevitable compromise - unless research prohibited
| 8
Brüstle v Greenpeace (1)
• In 1997, Oliver Brüstle filed a patent for Neural Precursor Stem
Cells, Methods for the Production and Use in neural defects
• Cells derived from blastocyst
• Greenpeace argued that patent invalid because it breached
the morality criteria in Article 6(2)(c) of the Biotech Directive:
• “uses of human embryos for industrial or commercial
purposes” are unpatentable
• German national proceedings
• Referral to ECJ from German court in January 2010
• Oral proceedings 12 January 2011
• Advocate General‟s Opinion 10 March 2011
ISCT - 20 May 2011 | 9
Brüstle v Greenpeace (2)
• Greenpeace partially successful at first instance but on appeal,
Federal Patent Court stayed the action and referred questions
on the meaning of Article 6(2)(c) to the CJEU:
1. meaning and scope of “embryo”
2. meaning and scope of exclusion of “industrial and commercial
uses”
3. exclusion by virtue of upstream uses or “necessary” prior
human embryo destruction
ISCT - 20 May 2011 | 10
Brüstle v Greenpeace (3)
• The AG issued his Opinion on 10 March 2011 stating that
inventions that necessitated the destruction of an embryo were
unpatentable on morality grounds
• 117. Furthermore, I consider that an invention must be
excluded from patentability, in accordance with that provision,
where the application of the technical process for which the
patent is filed necessitates the prior destruction of human
embryos or their use as base material, even if the description
of that process does not contain any reference to the use of
human embryos.
ISCT - 20 May 2011 | 11
Practical Ramifications
• If the CJEU adopts the Opinion, hESC patents will be vulnerable if theywere derived in a manner that resulted in the destruction of the embryo
• The wording in the decision may be very narrow – wait and see
• Regardless, in the short term the practical consequences may be morelimited than some commentators have suggested:
• Possible to obtain similar patents in other jurisdictions
• Australia, Canada, China, India, NZ, Singapore and the US
• Possible to obtain patents for other elements of the therapies or thedelivery of therapies
• “Regulatory IP” such as orphan drug designation will be applicable formany products
• Data exclusivity would provide some protection for 8 + 2 years afterMarketing Authorisation
• Extremely difficult to obtain a Marketing Authorisation for a biosimilar hESC
ISCT - 20 May 2011 13
15 years of Effective Protection
• The legislative compromise to reward new medicines appears
designed to deliver an effective 15 years of effective protection
• Patent Law: 20 year patent with 5-year SPC extension
• Regulatory: Data exclusivity (8+2+1 in EU) and Orphan Drug
Designation
• Bolar provisions to accelerate generics after expiry of initial period
• Biosimilars have proved to be challenging for generics
companies and regulators alike
• For biologics, the adage is that “the product is the process”
• Cost of developing a competing biologic can be large
• Products often delivered by infusion so healthcare
professionals are route to market (note the insulin market)
ISCT - 20 May 2011 | 14
Some Terminology
ISCT - 20 May 2011 | 15
Expression Meaning
Reference
Medicinal
Product (RMP)
The innovative medicine that has undergone full preclinical and
clinical studies (10+ years) to assess quality, safety and efficacy
Generic Can be approved without pre-clinical or clinical data if it has the
same:
• qualitative and quantitative composition in active substances;
and
• pharmaceutical form
as the Reference Medicinal Product
Biosimilar A generic where the medicine is a biopharmaceutical
Exclusivity for Reference Medicinal Product
ISCT - 20 May 2011 | 16
What is Protected Impact
8 yrs Data Exclusivity period
for RMP
No generic product can be approved using the
data used to approve the RMP
+2 Marketing exclusivity
period for RMP
Generic product can seek an MA by referring
to the RMP. However, the generic cannot be
marketed
+1 Marketing exclusivity
period for RMP
As above, if a new therapeutic indication for
the RMP approved in the first 8 years and it
has a significant clinical benefit
Orphan Drug Designation - 10 yrs exclusivity
• Orphan Drug intended for the diagnosis, prevention or
treatment of a life-threatening or chronically debilitating
condition affecting not more than 5 in 10,000 persons
• For 10 years after designation, no EU regulator shall accept
another application for an MA, or grant or extend an MA for the
same therapeutic indication, in respect of a similar medicinal
product
• Orphan Drug Designation can deliver 10 years of market
exclusivity
• This can be extended by 2 years for paediatric indications
| 17ISCT - 20 May 2011
Generic vs Biosimilar
Generic Biosimilar
Characteristics Simple, small & stable Complex, large & less stable
Characterisatio
n
Relatively easy Relatively difficult
Manufacturing
Process
Chemical process;
Easy to produce
identical copies
Biological substances with complex
biological process;
Challenging to reproduce similar copies
Procedure
requires
Bioequivalence Comparability studies to demonstrate
similarity
ISCT - 20 May 2011 | 18
Biosimilar Applications
ISCT - 20 May 2011 | 19
• Biosimilars approved for:
• Somatropin (growth hormone) by Sandoz and BioPartners
• Epoetin alfa by Medice Arzneimittel, Sandoz and Hexal
• Epoetin zeta by Hospira and Stada
• Filgastrim (G-CSF) by CT Arzneimittel and Ratiopharm and
Teva
• However,
•Alpheon‟s application for a interferon alfa 2a refused in June
2006
•Marvel‟s applications for three insulin products (rapid,
intermediate and long) withdrawn in January 2008
•BioPartners‟ application for interferon beta 1a withdrawn in
May 2009
Molecular Complexity and Generics
ISCT - 20 May 2011 | 20
Aspirin180 Daltons
✓ Insulin 5,700 Daltons
✓
EPO34,000 Daltons
✓MAb
150,000 Daltons
?
Factor VII250,000 Daltons
✗HeLa cell ≈2x1015 Daltons
Will there ever be a Biosimilar hESC product?
• High barriers to entry for a biosimilar of a hESC product
• A hESC product could be considered a biosimilar (not a generic)
• Unlikely that a biosimilar cell-based therapy would be approved
under the existing framework
• Product-specific guidelines for biosimilars generally require
appropriate validated surrogate end points for clinical studies.
These may not exist.
• Pharmacodynamics and pharmacokinetics are extremely difficult to
measurable where the cell itself is the API
• It may even be challenging to identify the mode of action of a
hESC medicinal product
• Preclinical and clinical trials needed to establish comparability
• Ownership of and access to the cell line itself will be crucial
ISCT - 20 May 2011 | 21
Creation of hESC lines in the UK - UKSCB
• Creation of an hESC line requires a licence from the HFEA.
• The research must:
• Increase knowledge about the development of embryos,
• Increase knowledge about serious disease, or
• Enable such knowledge to be applied in developing treatments for serious
disease.
• To minimise the embryos used, every hESC line derived in the UK must
be deposited in the UK Stem Cell Bank, which researchers can access
The UKSCB established to provide a repository of human
embryonic, foetal and adult stem cell lines as part of the
UK governance for the research use of human embryos
Provides quality controlled stocks of these cells that
researchers worldwide can rely on to facilitate research
ISCT - 20 May 2011 22
Concluding remarks
• Complex regulatory landscape
• Legal and political challenges should be anticipated
• But, based on experience to date:
• Challenges likely to be targeted rather than industry-wide, eg:
• WARF
• Brüstle
• NIH Decision
• Geron‟s clinical hold
• Shirley v Sibelius
• „Work-arounds‟ likely
• Careful planning therefore essential
ISCT - 20 May 2011 | 23
Legal Information
• The information in this presentation is provided for information purposes only.
The information is not exhaustive. While every endeavour is made to ensure
that the information is correct at the time of publication, the legal position may
change as a result of matters including new legislative developments, new
case law, local implementation variations or other developments. The
information does not take into account the specifics of any person's position
and may be wholly inappropriate for your particular circumstances. The
information is not intended to be legal advice, cannot be relied on as legal
advice and should not be a substitute for legal advice.
• Unless otherwise stated, the information is limited to the position in England
and Wales.
• Copyright: Lawford Davies Denoon Ltd retains copyright in the material and all
rights are reserved. None of the information may be copied (whether in whole
or in part).
ISCT - 20 May 2011 | 24
© LAWFORD DAVIES DENOON LTD 2010
Thank youLawford Davies Denoon14A Clerkenwell Green
London EC1R 0DP020 3441 0908
ISCT - 20 May 2011 26
EU Regulation: ATMP
• Single EU marketing authorisation procedure for ATMPs
• Specific pre-clinical and clinical requirements and
• Specific “detailed” guidelines on GMP
• Committee for Advanced Therapies within EMEA to provide
scientific advice on ATMPs (at least two members with medical
device expertise)
• Post-authorisation monitoring via pharmacovigilance and risk
management
• Incentives for SMEs
• Consistent with Australia, Canada and USA
ISCT - 20 May 2011 28
EU Regulatory Framework: Overview
Blood
2002/98/EC
Human Tissues and
Cells
2004/23/EC
Other materials
Clinical Trials
2001/20/EC
Medicinal Products
2001/83/EC
726/2004
GMP
2003/94/EC
Annex I
2003/63/ECATMP
Regulation
Amendments
2004/27/EC,
2004/24/EC and
2002/98/EC
ISCT - 20 May 2011 30
EU Regulation: Tissues and Cells (2)
• Preamble:
This Directive should apply to tissues and cells including
haematopoietic peripheral blood, umbilical-cord (blood) and bone-
marrow stem cells, reproductive cells (eggs, sperm), foetal tissues
and cells and adult and embryonic stem cells.
• Article 2:
This Directive shall apply to the donation, procurement, testing,
processing, preservation, storage and distribution of human tissues
and cells intended for human applications and of manufactured
products derived from human tissues and cells intended for human
applications.
ISCT - 20 May 2011 31
EU Regulation: Tissues and Cells (3)
• Article 2 contd:
This Directive shall not apply to:
(a) tissues and cells used as an autologous graft
within the same surgical procedure;
(b) blood and blood components as defined by
Directive 2002/98/EC;
(c) organs or parts of organs if it is their function to
be used for the same purpose as the entire organ in
the human body.
ATMP Regulation Bridges the Gap
ISCT - 20 May 2011 | 33
Medical
Devices
93/42/EEC
Medicinal
Products
2001/83/EC
Regulation
on Advanced
Therapies 1394/2007
Advanced Therapies
Legislative Framework
Science
Medical
DevicesTissue
EngineeringCell Therapy Gene Therapy Biotech Pharmaceuticals
CAT Specific expertise
CHMP Expertise
ISCT - 20 May 2011 34
EU Regulation: ATMP (3)
• Article 2 – Definitions:
a) "Advanced therapy medicinal product" means any of the
following medicinal products for human use:
• a gene therapy medicinal product as defined in Part IV of
Annex I to Directive 2001/83/EC;
• a somatic cell therapy medicinal product as defined in Part IV
of Annex I to Directive 2001/83/EC,
• a tissue engineered product as defined in point (b).
ISCT - 20 May 2011 35
EU Regulation: ATMP (4)
• Article 2 contd:
b) "Tissue engineered product" means a product that:
• contains or consists of engineered cells or tissues,
and
• is presented as having properties for, or is used in or
administered to human beings with a view to regenerating,
repairing or replacing a human tissue. A tissue engineered
product may contain cells or tissues of human or animal origin,
or both. The cells or tissues may be viable or non-viable. It
may also contain additional substances, such as cellular
products, bio-molecules, bio-materials, chemical substances,
scaffolds or matrices.
EU Regulation: ATMP (5)
• Article 2 contd:
c) Cells or tissues shall be considered "engineered" if they
fulfil at least one of the following conditions:
• the cells or tissues have been subject to substantial
manipulation, so that biological characteristics, physiological
functions or structural properties relevant for the intended
regeneration, repair or replacement are achieved. The
manipulations listed in Annex I, in particular, shall not be
considered as substantial manipulations;
• the cells or tissues are not intended to be used for the same
essential function or functions in the recipient as in the donor.
ISCT - 20 May 2011 | 36