Insights & news

Belgium – Cannabis for Medical Use – Update

  • 19/09/2019
  • News

As a follow-up to the Van Bael & Bellis Life Sciences Newsflash of 12 March 2019, please find below the latest on medical cannabis in Belgium. 

 

  • Following the publication on 20 May 2019 of the Law of 7 April 2019 amending the provisions on the provision of scientific and technical advice by the Federal Agency for Medicines and Health Products and on the financing of the Federal Agency for Medicines and Health Products as well as the establishment of a cannabis office’’, which provides the statutory basis for a Cannabis Office and the controlled cultivation and commercialization of cannabis in Belgium, we are still waiting for the publication of detailed implementing rules in the form of (a) Royal Decree(s). This may still take some time as there is yet a coalition to be formed for a new federal government following the national elections of 26 May 2019. The current caretaker government does not have the powers to adopt the requisite Royal Decree(s).
     
  • Once operational, the Cannabis Office will oversee and control cannabis activities in Belgium. The Cannabis Office will issue a call for tenders for the cultivation of a certain limited amount of cannabis. Licences will be granted to the successful applicants to cultivate cannabis in specified locations. The Cannabis Office will purchase the harvest and export and/or distribute it.
     
  • Since 2015, Belgian pharmacists were allowed to dispense “prepackaged” cannabis-based authorised medicines (e.g., Sativex®) and magisterial preparations on the basis of cannabidiol (“CBD”) powder. However, the pharmacists were prohibited from dispensing magisterial or officinal preparations for human or veterinary use which contain one or more tetrahydrocannabinols (“THC”) (Royal Decree of 11 June 2015). THC is the main psychoactive compound of cannabis. In practice, this meant that no magisterial preparations were dispensed as all CBD can contain trace amounts of THC. Patients therefore travelled abroad to obtain such preparations. However, on 16 July 2019, the Federal Agency for Medicines and Health Products (the “FAMHP”) issued a circular No. 648 (See, attached Dutch and French versions) in which it “interprets” the Royal Decree of 11 June 2015. The FAMHP states that the Royal Decree of 11 June 2015 was not intended to prohibit pharmacists from using CBD powder with trace amounts of THC and lays down criteria to determine whether a pharmacist is allowed to use a raw material contaminated with THC in a magisterial preparation. More particularly, raw material with trace amounts of THC can be used for magisterial preparations if the patient is exposed to maximum 1 microgram Δ9-THC per kilogram of body weight per day. The highest daily dose being 1,500 mg for a person weighing 75 kg, it cannot contain more than 75 micrograms Δ9-THC. This corresponds with a contamination of 0.0005%.
     
  • Based on the publicly available information, we understand that, following the adoption of circular No. 648, the FAMHP has already authorised one company (Fagron) to supply CBD powder to pharmacists for use in magisterial preparations.
     
  • On 11 September 2019, members of the Christian Democratic party CD&V submitted to the Chamber of Representatives a draft resolutionin favour of the therapeutic use, under strict conditions, of cannabinoids in order to soothe pain in case of specific spasmodic symptoms”. While it is uncertain whether the draft resolution will eventually manage to secure a parliamentary majority, it calls on the federal government to:

o   invest in further clinical research on the efficacy of cannabinoids to control pain and spasmodic symptoms;

o   extend, based on the aforementioned research, the indications for which the therapeutic use of cannabinoids is authorised for patients on whom other medicinal products have no or little effect, and for whom medical cannabis has clinically proven benefits in view of combating pain and spasmodic symptoms;

o   invest in research on the safe and controlled production of CBD oil, composed of 5% CBD and 2% THC;

o   approve, based on the above research, CBD oil as a medicinal product, composed of 5% CBD and 2% THC, so as to authorise its supply by hospital pharmacies, under the strict medical supervision of a physician, to patients on whom other medicinal products have no or little effect, and for whom medical cannabis has scientifically proven benefits, and this at least to patients suffering from multiple sclerosis, amyotrophic lateral sclerosis or epilepsy;

o   extend the therapeutic use of Sativex® to patients suffering from amyotrophic lateral sclerosis; and

o   examine the possibility of authorizing imports of approved and safe CBD oil while the production of CBD oil is not yet legalised in Belgium.

 

Related insights

Sign up for updates
    • 27/06/2022
    • Articles

    Spanish Competition Authority Set to Continue Excessive Pricing Probe Against Leadiant

    On 15 June 2022, the Spanish competition authority (Comisión Nacional de los Mercados y la Competencia – CNMC) rejected the appeal by Leadiant Biosciences SpA, Leadiant Biosciences Ltd, Leadiant GmbH and Sigma Tau Arzneimittel GmbH (together, Leadiant) against the decision of the Competition Directorate of the CNMC of 3 March 2022 to discontinue the settlement negotiations with Leadiant aiming to terminate the abuse of dominance probe which the CNMC launched against Leadiant on 22 December 2020 for alleged excessive pricing of chenodeoxycholic acid (CDCA) (see, Van Bael & Bellis Life Sciences Insights and News Alert of 22 December 2020). CDCA is an orphan medicine indicated for the treatment of patients afflicted with cerebrotendinous xanthomatosis, a rare metabolic disorder. In support of its appeal, Leadiant submitted that the Competition Directorate had violated Article 47 of the Spanish competition law (Law 15/2007, 3 July 2007) by rejecting its proposed commitments and ending the settlement procedure. More precisely, Leadiant argued that the Competition Directorate had infringed its rights of defence and had caused it irreparable harm, which are two possible grounds of appeal under Article 47 of the Spanish competition law. First, regarding the alleged infringement of Leadiant’s rights of defence, the CNMC held that the Competition Directorate had, in fact, provided Leadiant with a sufficiently detailed and reasoned explanation as to why it rejected the proposed commitments. Hence, Leadiant’s rights of defence had not been violated. Second, regarding its alleged irreparable harm, Leadiant argued that this harm would result from a violation of Article 47(1)(b) and (e) of Law 30/2015, 1 October 2015, which regulates the common administrative procedures in the Spanish public sector. Pursuant to these provisions, a decision is void if it was adopted by an authority which is not competent or if the procedure followed is not the adequate one for that decision. However, the CNMC disagreed with Leadiant, holding that the Competition Directorate was competent and had complied with all applicable legal requirements. Consequently, the CNMC concluded that the Competition Directorate’s decision was not void, had not ignored Leadiant’s right of defence and had not caused irreparable harm. This implies that the CNMC will continue its excessive pricing probe against Leadiant. A final decision is expected before August 2023. Leadiant’s pricing practices have already been fined in the Netherlands (see, Van Bael & Bellis Life Sciences Insights and News Alert of 20 July 2021) and Italy (see, Van Bael & Bellis Life Sciences Insights and News Alert of 1 June 2022), whilst they are being investigated in other Member States including Belgium (see, Van Bael & Bellis Life Sciences Insights and News Alert of 9 September 2019).

    Read more
    • 23/06/2022
    • Articles

    Belgian Government Think-Tank Publishes Study on Compulsory Licensing for Expensive Medicines

    On 14 June 2022, the Belgian Health Care Knowledge Centre (KCE), a research institute funded by the federal government, published a study discussing “Compulsory Licensing for Expensive Medicines” (the CL Study). The CL Study was commissioned by the Committee for Health and Equal Opportunities of the federal Chamber of Representatives which is reviewing bill 55K407 that seeks to expand the existing system of compulsory licensing for patented medicinal products in the interest of public health (Article XI.38(1) Code of Economic Law). The publication of the CL Study preceded by a few days the adoption of an intellectual property waiver for Covid-19 vaccines by the Twelfth Ministerial Conference of the World Trade Organisation (see, Van Bael & Bellis Life Sciences News and Insights of 20 June 2022) and was almost immediately welcomed in Parliament by the Minister of Social Affairs and Public Health. While the compulsory licensing of pharmaceutical patents is therefore clearly a trending topic, the CL Study is strikingly cautious in making policy recommendations. This is because compulsory licensing for expensive medicines not only raises questions of principle but also of practical implementation. Additionally, high medicine prices are generally the result of increasingly complex technological innovations. The CL Study therefore advocates a comprehensive approach that considers the entire regulatory framework, not just patent law, and is in favour of calibrated measures that do not jeopardise the benefits of the current system which seeks to encourage and reward innovation. That is a crucial concern for a country such as Belgium which hosts a thriving ecosystem of pharmaceutical and biotechnological research, development, clinical trials and production facilities. Additionally, the incentives for innovation encompass a range of measures covering patent law, know-how, data and market exclusivity, and targeted rules that stimulate the development of orphan and paediatric medicines. Lastly, the CL Study fully recognises the difficulties associated with defining an excessive price for medicines. It notes that the excessive pricing cases brought by European competition authorities all involve off-patent medicines (for a recent example with regard to Leadiant, see, Van Bael & Bellis Life Sciences News and Insights of 1 June 2022). On this basis, the CL study makes the following policy recommendations: • Compulsory licensing should not be an end, but rather a means to bring down prices in exceptional circumstances. • EU Member States should coordinate any initiatives to impose compulsory licensing in specific cases. • Adaptations to the current rules governing exclusivity and data access could be envisaged but require careful consideration. • In Belgium, the exchange of expertise between pricing and reimbursement authorities and the Belgian Competition Authority should be improved. • There is always scope for a more robust pricing and reimbursement policy and increased cooperation at EU and international level. • The patent exemption for pharmacists should be optimised. • Universities and public research institutions should apply “socially responsible licensing conditions”. • Collaborative models for patent licensing should be encouraged.

    Read more
    • 20/06/2022
    • News

    European Commission Starts Competition Investigation against Vifor Pharma regarding Disparaging Statements Made against Rival's Medicine

    The European Commission (the Commission) announced today that it would investigate disparaging statements made by Vifor Pharma, the marketing authorisation holder of Ferinject, an intravenous iron treatment medicine, regarding the safety of that product’s closest rival, Monofer, an intravenous iron treatment owned by Pharmacosmos. The Commission is of the opinion that these statements may amount to an abuse of dominant position contrary to Article 102, Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. The statements allegedly formed part of a communication campaign that targeted healthcare professionals and created obstacles to the uptake of Monofer in the European Union and the United Kingdom where the parties appear to have had a a long-standing dispute about code-of-practice violations dating back to 2011. Competition authorities have repeatedly pursued parties in an allegedly dominant position over deprecating statements made regarding competing products. Such statements often seek to create doubts regarding the targeted medicine’s safety, obviously a sensitive subject in the healthcare sector. In March 2021, the Commission had already started a similar case against Teva (Van Bael & Bellis Life Sciences News and Insights, 5 March 2021). In France, enforcement actions by the French competition authority, confirmed on at least two occasions following judicial review, gave rise to fines against Reckitt Benckiser, Janssen-Cilag (Van Bael & Bellis Life Sciences News and Insights, 26 December 2017 and 8 June 2022), and Genentech, Novartis and Roche (Van Bael & Bellis Life Sciences News and Insights, 9 September 2020).

    Read more

Subscribe to our updates

Please select the practice areas you are interested in: *