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.

 

Key contacts

Related practice areas

Related insights

Sign up for updates
    • 17/10/2019
    • Articles

    Clinical Trials | New Regulatory Developments

    The European Commission (the EC) has been active in the field of clinical trials lately. New Site Suitability Template On 15 October 2019, the EC published a new “Site Suitability Template” that sponsors of clinical trials can use as part of their application dossier. Although the template was developed for use under the EU Clinical Trials Regulation (i.e., Regulation (EU) No 536/2014 of 16 April 2014; the CTR), which, as you know, has yet to take effect, the EC emphasises that “this template is also relevant under Directive 2001/20/EC and may be used in advance of the Regulation applying”. It is clear that it will still take some time for the CTR to enter into force. During the latest meeting of the European Medicines Agency's Management Board (the EMA Board), it became apparent that it is currently too early for the EMA Board to even consider the timing of the audit of the CTR’s underlying IT systems (i.e., the EU Clinical Trials Portal and EU Database) (see here, p. 2). Yet, the entry into force of the CTR is contingent on an audit of the EMA Board confirming that the EU Clinical Trials Portal and EU Database are fully functional. Guidelines on Good Clinical Practice specific to Advanced Therapy Medicinal Products Yesterday, the EC published guidelines on Good Clinical Practice (GCP) specific to Advanced Therapy Medicinal Products (ATMPs). The guidelines describe the GCP requirements that are specific to clinical trials conducted with ATMPs. They complement the International Council for Harmonisation of Technical Requirements for Pharmaceuticals for Human Use guidelines on Good Clinical Practice (ICH-GCP), which are of general application. In case of discrepancies, the EC guidelines prevail.

    Read more
    • 17/10/2019
    • Articles

    Belgian Competition Authority Imposes Second Fine on Professional Organisation of Pharmacists in Less Than Six Months

    On 15 October 2019, the Belgian Competition Authority (“BCA”) again took formal steps against the professional organisation of pharmacists (“Orde der Apothekers”/ “Ordre des pharmaciens”) (the “PO”) (see, attached press release of 16 October 2019). First Decision In a first decision, the BCA imposed a fine of EUR 225,000 on PO. This sanction comes less than six months after that same body was in May 2019 at the receiving end of another fine of EUR 1 million on account of exclusionary measures thwarting the development of MediCare-Market (see, Van Bael & Bellis Life Science Newsflashes of 5 June 2019 and 24 June 2019). This time, the BCA found that several provisions of the PO’s Code of Ethics and two of its communications unduly restricted the ability of pharmacists to advertise their business and non-pharmaceutical products, both online and offline. In its current version, the Code of Ethics forbids any “solicitation” of patients. The BCA found this to be “almost identical” to a ban on advertising. The BCA also took issue with two PO communications of 2014 and 2017 prohibiting pharmacists from using Google AdWords or social media to advertise their products. Although the advertising of medicines is regulated in Belgium, no such regulation applies to non-pharmaceutical products. These provisions of the Code and these two communications therefore had as their very object the restriction of competition. Interestingly, the BCA specified that “it did not have any objections concerning medicines” as advertising prescription medicines to end users is forbidden by law and advertising over the counter medicines is strictly regulated. Compared to its May 2019 decision, the BCA imposed a modest fine of EUR 225,000. The BCA only fined the PO for its communications preventing pharmacists from using Google AdWords or social media to advertise non-pharmaceutical products, not for the infringements included in the Code of Ethics. Having regard to the principle that decisions must be adopted within a reasonable time, the BCA explained that the infringements included in the Code of Ethics had been investigated since 2010 and should therefore not give rise to a fine. As a result, the fine was based on the sole turnover of pharmacists for their online sales of non-pharmaceutical products. Moreover, since the PO accepted to settle the case, it obtained a 10% reduction of the fine in exchange for its acknowledgment of the infringement and its waiver of the right to appeal this decision. The PO also offered commitments to the BCA, which were mentioned as a reason for the BCA not to impose any fine for the infringements included in the Code of Ethics. These commitments were examined by the BCA in a separate decision. Second Decision In this second decision, the BCA decided to close the investigation partially without imposing a fine after PO offered to (i) adopt a new Code of Ethics allowing advertising and the solicitation of patients, also through paying referencing services and social media, by the end of 2019; (ii) adopt a commented version of the Code of Ethics complementing the Code of Ethics on advertising and commercial practices, which should notably distinguish between medicines and other products, by the end of 2019; (iii) review the commented version of the Code of Ethics on a regular basis with regard to the decisional practice of disciplinary bodies of the PO and to assess the need to review the Code of Ethics at least every five years; and (iv) make accessible to members on its website an anonymised version of the disciplinary decisions adopted pursuant to the provisions of the new Code of Ethics. The BCA considered that these commitments were sufficient to remedy the flaws which it had identified and therefore made them binding on the PO. Contrary to the settlement procedure followed in the context of the first decision, when the BCA closes a case further to commitments received from the parties, it does not reach any final decision on the existence of an infringement. As a result, while the infringements contained in the first decision are now considered established, the BCA’s preliminary objections included in the second decision are not confirmed. In the second decision, the BCA blamed the PO for allowing disciplinary bodies to use specific provisions of its Code of Ethics as a basis for sanctioning pharmacists not only for their advertising activities, but also for offering significant rebates to patients. The BCA’s initial view was that this restriction on rebates amounted to “indirectly imposing a minimum price” for both medicines and non-pharmaceutical products sold in pharmacies. Since the BCA decided to accept the PO’s commitments, it did not take a final view on the merits of these initial objections. Remarkably, the BCA only “partially” closed the investigation further to the commitments offered by the PO. This seems to imply that the BCA is still investigating certain practices of the PO. It cannot therefore be ruled out that the BCA should adopt yet another decision regarding the PO in the coming months or years.

    Read more
    • 16/10/2019
    • Articles

    Italian Competition Authority Opens Investigation Against Leadiant over Allegedly Excessive Medicine Pricing and Other Abusive Conduct

    On 15 October 2019, the Italian Competition Authority carried out on-site inspections at the premises of Leadiant in Italy and, with the help of local competition authorities, in Germany and the United Kingdom (see, attached press release and decision). Leadiant is the marketing authorisation holder of chenodeoxycholic acid Leadiant (“CDCA”) which is indicated for the treatment of patients afflicted with cerebrotendinous xanthomatosis, a rare metabolic disorder (“CTX”). CDCA was designated as an orphan medicine in December 2014 but its active substance has been known for decades as a cure for cholesterol gallstones as well. Leadiant stands accused of (i) excessive pricing; (ii) foreclosing the market for “home brew” versions of CDCA produced in hospital pharmacies; and (iii) indulging in delaying and obstructionist tactics when negotiating high prices with AIFA, the Italian medicines agency. All of these alleged practices would constitute an abuse of dominant position in breach of Article 102, Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. Leadiant has been in the crosshairs of competition authorities, healthcare regulators and political figures for quite some time. For example, its pricing practices for CDCA are under review in Belgium and The Netherlands (see, Van Bael & Bellis Life Sciences Newsflash of 9 April 2019, 9 September 2019 and 17 September 2019) and possibly also in Spain. Additionally, these practices formed the subject of questions in the European Parliament addressed to Commissioner for health and food safety Vytenis Andriukaitis (see, Van Bael & Bellis Life Sciences Newsflash of 11 February 2019). The Italian Competition Authority plans to finish its investigation by 31 October 2020.

    Read more

Subscribe to our updates

Please select the practice areas you are interested in: *