[Ip-health] Report from Pretoria

Peter Pitts ppitts at cmpi.org
Tue Oct 8 07:11:05 PDT 2013

Haile Selassie, call your office
Tue, Oct 08, 2013 | Peter Pitts
Another way the Republic of South Africa is trying to reinvent itself is in the way it regulates and reimburses for medicines. “BE” means not only “Black Empowerment” (in the post-apartheid sense) but also “bioequivalence.”

I’ve just returned from the “New Developments in Drug Regulation” conference in Pretoria, and there was a lot of serious discussion as to how government regulators can do a better job in a uniquely South African situation.

Some memorable moments …

Tomas Salmonson (Chair of the EMA’s CHMP) told the audience that, while he is a strong believer in transparency, he is not in favor of patient representatives on decision panels. Such representation, he said, “would be like having an elected parliament and then additional members.” He also does not believe that these meetings (akin in many ways to an FDA advisory committee meeting) should be open to the public. I pointed out that having patient reps and open adcomm meetings was a crucial part of the FDA process. Salmonson commented, “I know.”

Transparency translates in different ways. Salmonson noted that one way the EMA promulgates transparency is through its EPARS (European Public Assessment Reports System). The European Medicines Agency publishes an EPAR for every medicine granted a central marketing authorization by the European Commission. EPARs are full scientific assessment reports of medicines authorized at a European Union level. 

Salmonson also made the point that a transparent process behind benefit/risk allows consumers and healthcare providers to trust the regulator. FDA – attention must be paid.

Peter Bachmann, head of the Germany’s BfArM (Federal Institute for Drugs and Medical Devices) Coordination Group Unit, spoke to the EMA’s philosophy of being “united in diversity” (a theme that certainly resonated in Pretoria). He also discussed the EMA’s program of mutual recognition, detailing the agency’s methodology of “work-sharing” – a process of cross-national regulatory peer review that should be studied by FDA policy panjandrums for many reasons, not the least of which is quality control.

Ngokoana Khomo, Vice Chair of South Africa’s MCC (Medicines Control Council – the South African version of the FDA) honestly spoke of the tension between “the policy and the practice” of medicines regulation in South Africa. Unspoken was the obvious under-current of a third “p” – politics. And perhaps a fourth – “Potemkin Regulation.” She spoke of the MCC’s mission as “access, equity, efficiency, quality, and sustainability.” Dr. Khomo wisely said that “transparency takes away all suspicions.” But saying and doing is not always the same thing. She also spoke about the rational use of medicine. After all, you can’t spell Ngokoana without NGO.

Ekkehard Baader (Senior Director, Head of EU Regulatory Affairs at Teva) addressed the importance of (and distinctions between) consultation, communications, and cooperation.

Speaking of Teva – there was no discussion of generic drugs during the conference. Not a single mention of API sourcing and quality, not a word about excipients. Disturbing considering the venue and the reality.

BfArM’s Birka Lehmann (a member of PDCO, the EMA’s Paediatric Committee) spoke about issues surrounding informed consent for children (“What if the baby is crying?”) as well as the need for a Paediatric Investigation Plan (PIP) at end of phase 1. Clearly an area ripe for FDA harmonization conversations. Clearly the pediatric train is moving – but EMA and FDA should be on the same track.

At this point you may be wondering what any of this has to do with regulatory reform in the Republic of South Africa. That question was also on the minds of many in the audience who asked questions like, “how much does all of this cost?” and “how many people do you need?” and “how do you train staff?”

Day 2 began with a focus on biosimilars and the successes and failures of the EMA experience – as well as a nod to the work being done by the WHO.

The presentation by Chris Holloway (Group Director of Regulatory Affairs & Chief Scientific Officer at the ERA Consulting Group) was the first person to use the word “quality” – and “process.”  He spoke about “balancing needs against expectations.” And it was a welcome addition to the conversation. A breath of real-world reality vs. regulatory theory.

Elwyn Griffiths (WHO) likened his organization’s attempts to develop criteria for biosimilars to the League of Nations – but in a good way.

Haile Selassie, call your office.

Max Wegner (VP, Head of Global Regulatory Affairs, General Medicine at Bayer AG) addressed the unintended consequences of the EMA’s PRAC (Pharmacovigilance Risk Assessment Committee), specifically the impact of public reports of adverse events that had yet to be investigated. I added that the FDA had similar issues with Early Safety Signal Communications and the resultant unintended (but not entirely unsurprising) over reaction by the media and the ensuing leap in non-adherence.

Finally, Marc Blockman of the host Medicines Control Council (MCC) spoke on the issues surrounding both the importance of and difficulties with pharmacoviginance in South Africa. Two of his comments stand out: “Pharmacovigilance is a public service” Bravo. And, “Yes, we have a yellow card – but the form is as much the problem as it is the process.” Sounds familiar.

The conference was, as Pierre Abélard might have put it, a “sic et non” experience. Lots of good advice – but not a lot of applicable next steps. What makes this all the more urgent is the South African position on medicines reimbursement and intellectual property – which shares many philosophical underpinnings with that other bastion of IP protection – India.

Just as there are issues relative to South Africa’s need for regulatory capacity building, so too is capacity building and investment important for the future of intellectual property issues. One frightening passage in South Africa’s proposal states, “The Draft Policy proposes adopting strict patenting rules to “exclude diagnostic, therapeutic and surgical methods from patentability, including new uses of known products, as is the case under the TRIPS Agreement.” Not a good start for a nation that wants to be the “s” added to BRICS.

Further, South African law currently provides no regulatory data protection and the Draft Policy does not include any.  Moreover, it explicitly rejects the utility of “blanket data protection” for innovator data and emphasizes the importance of “access to knowledge.”  Uh oh. And, of course, there’s a magic rain dance call for compulsory licensing.

The Draft Policy encourages the use of parallel importation to improve access to medicines. Been there. Done that. A clear and present risk to patients.

And these are only a few examples. It gets worse.

The policy disconnect is profound. In April, South Africa sent a sizable delegation to the mega BIO convention with the message that they were “open for business,” and aspires to be a player in global life sciences.

At the same time, local generics manufacturers and the usual suspect activists are whipping up frenzy over intellectual property issues. The same old song. And a dangerous one considering that Scientific American ranks South Africa in the bottom 20% of its life science/innovation index.

(PS/ Under the current regulatory regime, it takes the MCC between 3-5 years after EMA or FDA approval t bring innovative therapeutics to South African patients – the slowest among “advanced” MEA nations. What’s wrong with this picture?)

Rather than looking to emulate the EMA, perhaps South Africa should adopt a reference basket of maybe five to six countries. A good model is Singapore. Everyone’s favorite city-state reviews six countries—USA, Canada, Australia, NZ, Japan, Switzerland and the EMA.  If any two of the five have approved, then approval is basically a formality.

Talk is cheap.

There is nothing like returning to a place that remains unchanged to find the ways in which you yourself have altered. – Nelson Mandela

More information about the Ip-health mailing list