European Union: Europe—General Court Confirms Obligation To Prove Significant Benefit Over All Authorized Medicinal Products, Including Those Authorized After The Submission Of The Marketing Authorization Application For The Future (Orphan) Product

Last Updated: 13 December 2018
Article by Genevičve Michaux and Luca Salernitano

On December 5, 2018, the General Court (Court) ruled in favor of the European Commission in a case brought by Bristol-Myers Squibb Pharma (BMS) against the Commission and the European Medicines Agency (EMA) (T 329/16). BMS had sought the annulment of the Commission's decision to remove Empliciti (elotuzumab) from the Community Register of orphan medicinal products following the "procedure for maintenance of the orphan designation." During that procedure, the Committee for Orphan Medicinal Products (COMP) asked BMS to show the significant benefit of Empliciti over Kyprolis, a medicinal product that had been authorized several months after the submission of the marketing authorization application (MAA) for Empliciti. Despite the lack of data available on Kyprolis, BMS tried to provide such a comparison, but the COMP concluded that it was not sufficient and recommended the removal of the orphan designation.

The Court's ruling in favor of the Commission supports an application of the "procedure for maintenance of the orphan designation" (which was informally created by the Commission pursuant to Article 5(12) of the Orphan Regulation) that disregards how impossible it is for companies to produce the stringent comparative evidence required by the COMP even though data on newly authorized medicinal products is not yet publicly available.

Increasingly, evidence has become a key concern for companies developing orphan medicinal products. The success of the Orphan Regulation has led to the development and marketing of many medicinal products designed for rare diseases, which multiplies the number of products that must be taken into account for significant benefit purposes. In addition, many more companies are developing orphan drugs, which makes it more common than in the past to have competing orphan drugs being assessed for approval more or less at the same time. Given the level of evidence required by the COMP, demonstrating significant benefit over a product that has been authorized a couple of years ago is challenging; bringing such evidence for a medicinal product authorized a few months ago is basically impossible. The confidentiality of the MA procedure until the granting of the MA, the time required to get effective access to documents in the MA dossier and the time necessary to complete the pricing and reimbursement procedure(s) de facto lead to a lack of publicly available data for more than a year after the granting of a MA.     

In August 2012, the Commission decided that elotuzumab met the criteria for orphan designation (OD) set forth in Article 3 of the Orphan Regulation and granted an OD to elotuzumab for the treatment of multiple myeloma. However, in 2015-2016, when BMS sought marketing authorization (MA) for Empliciti, a medicinal product containing elotuzumab, the Commission revisited whether elotuzumab met the OD criteria, decided that it no longer did and withdrew the OD.

In Europe, a medicinal product obtains an orphan status in two steps: the orphan status is (i) granted and (ii) then "maintained" at the time of MA if the Commission concludes once again that the OD criteria are met.

The maintenance of the OD at the time of MA is not expressly set forth by the Orphan Regulation. The regulation simply states that a designated orphan medicinal product must be removed from the Community Register if it is established, before the MA is granted, that the designation criteria are no longer met. The Commission interpreted those legal provisions as requiring a systematic review of an OD right before the grant of an MA.

That review may lead to the withdrawal of the OD.  Indeed, the designation criteria include the so-called "significant benefit"—i.e., there is no other satisfactory therapy for the condition, or, if there is one (or more), the future product will bring a significant benefit over the existing therapy. The significant benefit must be demonstrated by means of a comparison between the existing therapy(ies) and the future medicinal product. At the time of granting of the OD, the Commission considers that presumptions are sufficient because the company has not yet fully developed its future medicinal products. However, at the time of MA, the COMP requires direct comparative data, i.e., head-to-head studies. Because direct comparison is not always possible, the COMP, in certain cases, will accept indirect comparative data. However, in rare cases, even indirect comparisons are not feasible due to lack of publicly available data, especially for newly authorized medicinal products.

In practice, the company submits the comparative data for the maintenance of the OD with the MAA. If a new medicinal product is authorized after that date, it is very difficult, if not impossible, to generate direct comparative data and, sometimes, even indirect comparative data. On the one hand, the MA procedure is confidential, and the MA dossier is not accessible up until the granting of the MA. On another hand, the pricing and reimbursement procedure(s) delays the effective marketing of the new products and thereby "real world" safety and efficacy data and scientific publication. 

BMS found itself in this difficult situation. It had submitted the MAA in July 2015 and, in November 2015, the Commission authorized a new medicinal product, Kyprolis (carfilzomib), for the treatment of multiple myeloma. The COMP asked BMS to demonstrate the significant benefit of Empliciti over Kyprolis. BMS submitted a scientific discussion on the significant benefit of elotuzumab over carfilzomib. Although the CHMP, the EMA committee in charge of the scientific assessment of MAAs, gave a positive opinion on the MA, the COMP gave a negative opinion on the maintenance of the OD on the grounds that BMS did not demonstrate a significant benefit of Empliciti over Kyprolis. BMS appealed that negative opinion, but the COMP maintained its initial opinion. The Commission granted an MA for Empliciti, and, a few days later, the Community Register of orphan medicinal products no longer included elotuzumab. On the same day, elotuzumab was listed on the Community Register of non-active orphan medicinal products.

BMS's action for annulment was based on (i) violation of Article 5(12)(b) of the Orphan Regulation in conjunction with the principle of proportionality; (ii) violation of Article 5(12)(b) in conjunction with Article 5(8); and (iii) failure to identify the legal basis and to state reasons. We focus on the first plea—violation of Article 5(12)(b) of the Orphan Regulation in conjunction with the principle of proportionality—as it touches on "core" principles of the European orphan system.

BMS's plea was divided in three arguments.

(i) Kyprolis may not be taken into account in the review of the significant benefit because it was authorized after the submission of the MAA for Empliciti:  BMS claimed that Empliciti should not have been compared with Kyprolis because Kyprolis was authorized on November 19, 2015, i.e. after the submission of the MAA for Kyprolis. Taking medicinal products authorized after the submission of the MAA into account for significant benefit purposes:

  • Jeopardizes compliance with the principle of proportionality and the attainment of the objective of the Orphan Regulation (to encourage pharmaceutical laboratories to invest in research and development of new products by granting them market exclusivity).
  • Is unfair because there is not enough time to submit sufficient data, particularly if a direct comparison is to be made.

After first recalling that a significant benefit must be drawn from a comparison of the future medicinal product with medicinal products that have already been authorized (9 Sept. 2010, Now Pharm v Commission, T 74/08), the Court noted that:

  • The wording of Article 3(1)(b) of the Orphan Regulation, in particular the phrase "that has been authorised in the [European Union]," as well as the Court's interpretation of this provision justify the conclusion that all authorized medicinal products must be taken into account for establishing the significant benefit. The Orphan Regulation does not provide for any exception, and, if the legislature had intended to exclude medicinal products authorized after the submission of the MAA, it could have done so;
  • Neither Article 5(12) nor Article 7(3) of the Orphan Regulation refer to the MAA but rather to the MA, and the date on which the MA is granted is the deadline for establishing whether the designation criteria are still met;
  • Not comparing the medicinal products authorized after the submission of the MAA with the future medicinal product could result in infringing Article 7(3), which prohibits the grant of an MA for therapeutic indications that do not meet the designation criteria;
  • Pursuant to Article 7(3), in combination with Article 5(12), the designation criteria must be reviewed before an MA is granted, so the relevant time for establishing whether those criteria are still met is the time at which an MA is granted for that product;

... and concluded that the COMP was under a legal obligation to evaluate the potential significant benefit of Empliciti as compared with Kyprolis. If the COMP had not assessed significant benefit by comparing Empliciti with Kyprolis, it would not have been possible to establish, in accordance with Article 5(12), whether Empliciti still met the designation criteria.

The Court also decided that the principle of proportionality was not breached because the assessments concerning the significant benefit criterion were carried out objectively, from a purely scientific point of view, so that the COMP had no scope for discretion as regards to recommending to the Commission to remove the medicinal product from the Community Register of orphan medicinal products.

(ii) Conclusive evidence should show that Empliciti is no longer of significant benefit, not that it is of significant benefit: According to BMS, the Commission's decision relied, incorrectly, on data that did not clearly demonstrate that Empliciti did not provide significant benefit compared to Kyprolis. Indeed,

  • According to the wording of Article 5(12)(b), at the time of MA, compelling evidence is needed that the designated medicinal product is no longer of significant benefit compared with other authorized medicinal products, not that the designated medicinal product is of significant benefit.
  • By applying an incorrect criterion, the EMA implemented the procedure under Article 5(12) in a manner that went beyond what was appropriate and necessary to achieve the objective of the Orphan Regulation.

The Court considered that:

  • Article 5(12)(b) requires a review of the OD criteria before an MA is granted, so the company triggers a procedure for re-evaluating those criteria when it submits an MAA for a designated orphan medicinal product;
  • The responsibility for assessing whether the OD criteria are met lies solely with the COMP, which must issue a scientific opinion on the initial OD. An MA will confer entitlement to market exclusivity only if the COMP has confirmed, at the conclusion of its scientific assessment, that the designation criteria are met. According to Article 7(3), the MA granted for an orphan medicinal product covers only those therapeutic indications that fulfill the criteria set out in Article 3;
  • It is apparent from a reading of Article 5(12)(b) in conjunction with Article 7(3) that at the time of the MA the COMP must carry out a complete re-evaluation of the designation criteria in a factual situation that is different from that which led to the initial OD. That new assessment must take into account evidence that has come to light since the grant of the initial OD, including new medicinal products that have been authorized in the meantime. Thus, if it is shown that the basis on which the initial OD was granted has changed—in particular where that OD was based on a significant benefit that no longer exists due to the existence of new authorized medicinal products at the time of the MA, the future medicinal product must be removed from the Community Register;

... and concluded that there must be a positive finding that the significant benefit criterion is met once again at the time of the MA. In order to confirm its initial opinion, the COMP must satisfy itself, scientifically and objectively, that the significant benefit criterion is met. In the absence of conclusive evidence proving significant benefit at the time of MA, the COMP is required to conclude that the designation criteria are no longer met. Therefore, in order to avoid such removal, the company must provide sufficient data to establish significant benefit in light of new circumstances prevailing at the time the MA is granted.

(iii) The test for the assessment of significant benefit is overly rigid: BMS claimed that the Commission applied, incorrectly, an overly rigid test to assess the significant benefit. Even though the COMP had to verify whether the available data supported the conclusion that Empliciti offered significant benefit compared with Kyprolis, the COMP should not have fixed an overly rigid test for evidence of significant benefit but instead should have (i) conducted a more global assessment, focusing on all of the evidence that could substantiate its claim of significant benefit; (ii) used the general criterion of benefit for the patient; and (iii) applied a standard of proof that did not require conclusive proof and could allow for estimates and assumptions based on the available data, especially when taking into account the relevant circumstances, including the practical impossibility for the applicant to produce new comparative data.

The Court disagreed with BMS.

It noted that the procedure for OD is an administrative procedure involving complex scientific assessments and that, in most cases, the Commission endorses the opinions of the COMP unless it has other adequate sources of information in the field concerned. In addition, according to case law, where the Commission must undertake complex technical and/or scientific assessments, it enjoys broad discretion. As part of their judicial review, EU courts must determine whether the relevant procedural rules have been complied with, whether the facts established by the Commission are correct and whether there has been a manifest error of appraisal of those facts or a misuse of powers (9 Sept.2010, Now Pharm v Commission, T 74/08). With the Commission having endorsed the findings of the COMP opinion, the judicial review of that opinion, in particular the Court's review as to whether there has been a manifest error of assessment, had to be carried in respect of all the considerations set out in that opinion, which forms an integral part of the decision at issue.

In addition, the Court cannot substitute its own assessment for that of the COMP. It is only the proper functioning of the COMP, the internal consistency of the opinion and the statement of reasons contained therein that are subject to judicial review. The Court is empowered only to examine whether the COMP opinion contains a statement of reasons from which it is possible to ascertain the considerations on which the opinion is based and whether it establishes a comprehensible link between the medical and/or scientific findings and its conclusions (26 Nov. 2002, Artegodan and Others v Commission, T 74/00, T 76/00, T 83/00 to T 85/00, T 132/00, T 137/00 and T 141/00). In the BMS case, the COMP opinion contains a statement of reasons from which it is possible to ascertain the considerations on which the opinion is based and to establish a comprehensible link between its conclusions and the medical and/or scientific findings. It cannot therefore be validly claimed that the statement of reasons in that opinion is vitiated by unlawfulness in that regard.

Finally, the wording of Article 3(1)(b) and the spirit underlying the orphan system create strict criteria for a finding of significant benefit. In the BMS case, it is apparent from the COMP opinion that the COMP applied strictly the criteria for establishing whether there was a significant benefit, and there was no manifest error of assessment in that regard.

Let's hope that BMS decides to appeal the decision of the General Court and that the European Court of Justice gives an interpretation of the relevant legal provisions that not only recognizes the evidence issue but also the objective of the Orphan Regulation. This is especially important as the European Commission has launched a public consultation on the Orphan Regulation, thereby indicating a possible revision of that legislation, and if such a revision were to happen, the EU legislature would most likely codify the European case law.

Visit us at mayerbrown.com

Mayer Brown is a global legal services provider comprising legal practices that are separate entities (the "Mayer Brown Practices"). The Mayer Brown Practices are: Mayer Brown LLP and Mayer Brown Europe – Brussels LLP, both limited liability partnerships established in Illinois USA; Mayer Brown International LLP, a limited liability partnership incorporated in England and Wales (authorized and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority and registered in England and Wales number OC 303359); Mayer Brown, a SELAS established in France; Mayer Brown JSM, a Hong Kong partnership and its associated entities in Asia; and Tauil & Chequer Advogados, a Brazilian law partnership with which Mayer Brown is associated. "Mayer Brown" and the Mayer Brown logo are the trademarks of the Mayer Brown Practices in their respective jurisdictions.

© Copyright 2018. The Mayer Brown Practices. All rights reserved.

This Mayer Brown article provides information and comments on legal issues and developments of interest. The foregoing is not a comprehensive treatment of the subject matter covered and is not intended to provide legal advice. Readers should seek specific legal advice before taking any action with respect to the matters discussed herein.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Authors
 
Some comments from our readers…
“The articles are extremely timely and highly applicable”
“I often find critical information not available elsewhere”
“As in-house counsel, Mondaq’s service is of great value”

Related Topics
 
Related Articles
 
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Tools
Print
Font Size:
Translation
Channels
Mondaq on Twitter
 
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
 
Email Address
Company Name
Password
Confirm Password
Position
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Accounting
 Anti-trust
 Commercial
 Compliance
 Consumer
 Criminal
 Employment
 Energy
 Environment
 Family
 Finance
 Government
 Healthcare
 Immigration
 Insolvency
 Insurance
 International
 IP
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Litigation
 Media & IT
 Privacy
 Real Estate
 Strategy
 Tax
 Technology
 Transport
 Wealth Mgt
Regions
Africa
Asia
Asia Pacific
Australasia
Canada
Caribbean
Europe
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
U.K.
United States
Worldwide Updates
Registration (you must scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of www.mondaq.com

To Use Mondaq.com you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.

Disclaimer

The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.

General

Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions