Insights & news

Leadiant Fights Perception that Price for CDCA is Excessive

  • 17/09/2019
  • Articles

Leadiant is involved simultaneously in administrative proceedings and in a public relations struggle to justify its pricing for chenodeoxycholic acid Leadiant (“CDCA”), a medicine indicated for the treatment of patients afflicted with cerebrotendinous xanthomatosis, a rare metabolic disorder (“CTX”). In Europe, the number of these patients is thought to be in a range between 200 and 250. Leadiant secured orphan medicine status for CDCA in December 2014 after it succeeded in demonstrating the significant benefit of CDCA over existing treatments of CTX.
 
However, by Leadiant’s own acknowledgement, the list price of CDCA “appears to be high” especially when that price is compared with that of an old medicine with the same active substance indicated for the treatment of cholesterol gallstones. As a result, Leadiant has come under fire from various political leaders, healthcare regulators and competition authorities on account of the allegedly excessive prices which it charges for CDCA (see, Van Bael & Bellis Life Sciences Newsflashes of 9 September 2019, 9 April 2019, and 12 February 2019). 
 
Leadiant has now taken the unusual step of making publicly available a letter which it sent to the Dutch Minister of Medical Care, Bruno Bruins, following talks over the price of CDCA (the “Letter” – see attached Dutch-language original and English translation). The Letter sets forth Leadiant’s arguments in favour of the current price of CDCA in The Netherlands, but also highlights Leadiant’s willingness to continue the discussions in hopes of finding an “acceptable price” and thus securing what Leadiant describes as “access to an innovative medicine”. In the Letter, Leadiant makes the following points: 

 

  • CDCA is a new medicine that should be distinguished from the old medicine with the same active substance for a different therapeutic indication. It faced much more exacting hurdles to secure a marketing authorisation than did the marketing authorisation holder of the old medicine many years ago.
  • Leadiant was able to show the significant benefit of CDCA over other forms of treatment of CTX.
  • Leadiant invested significant amounts in retrospective studies that demonstrated the safety and efficacy of CDCA (The European Medicines Agency actually indicates that the marketing authorisation for CDCA results from a hybrid application which relied in part on the results of pre-clinical tests and clinical trials for a reference product and in part on new data. Additionally, the marketing authorisation was granted “under exceptional circumstances” which implies that Leadiant was unable to provide comprehensive data on the efficacy and safety under normal conditions of use).
  • Leadiant was required to modernise the active substance master file for the active pharmaceutical ingredient at the heart of CDCA.
  • Leadiant created a European patient registry which just became operational and is designed to monitor the benefits and safety of the medicine and thus make up for the insufficient data available at the time the marketing registration was granted.
  • Leadiant committed to developing a paediatric formulation which will specifically cater to the needs of 30 to 60 patients in the EU.
  • Lastly, Leadiant strongly disputes the public health benefits of a pharmaceutical preparation that was touted in The Netherlands as a possible alternative to CDCA. 

 

The Letter should be understood as an attempt by Leadiant to demonstrate its bona fides and operate as a reliable partner of the health authorities in the interest of patients. Time will tell whether that attempt is successful.

 

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: *