EMA Competing Interests Policy for Scientific Committee Members

By João L. Carapinha

October 14, 2024

The European Medicines Agency (EMA) published a detailed revision of their policy on handling competing interests for scientific committee members and experts. This revision is essential, as it ensures that experts involved in the EMA’s activities do not possess conflicts of interest that could undermine their impartiality. By focusing on the handling competing interests, the EMA aims to strengthen its governance and maintain trust in its processes.

Background and Purpose

The EMA is revising its policy on handling competing interests, known as ‘Policy 0044’. This revision aims to ensure that experts involved in the Agency’s activities do not have conflicts of interest.

Public Consultation

The draft revised policy is currently open for public consultation until 10 November 2024. Stakeholders should provide feedback via an online questionnaire. The EMA’s Management Board expects to adopt the finalized version by year-end.

Main Changes Introduced

  • Current Interests in Products: Experts with ongoing interests in a product will face restrictions not only concerning that product but also others in the same declared condition. These limitations extend to discussions, encompassing more than just final deliberations and voting.
  • Principal Investigators and Investigators: Experts acting as principal investigators will now face the same restrictions as those with direct ties to pharmaceutical companies.
  • Past Employment and Roles: A unified three-year cooling-off period will be enforced for experts with past roles in pharmaceutical companies, consultancy positions, or investigator activities. This approach aligns the rules for committee members and ad-hoc experts.

Consistency Across Roles and Groups

The revised policy is designed to ensure consistent handling of competing interests across all EMA activities. This includes interactions between committees, Scientific Advisory Groups (SAG), and Ad-hoc Expert Groups (AHEGs).

Nature and Timeframe of Interests

The updated policy distinguishes between the nature of declared interests, such as direct versus indirect ties, and the timing of those interests, specifying current versus past involvement. Stricter restrictions are applied for members with direct interests strongly linked to pharmaceutical companies.

Previous Policy and Revisions

The original policy was first implemented in 2004 and has been revised several times. Previous updates included limitations on involvement in medicine assessments for those intending to transition into the pharmaceutical industry. It also includes aligning rules for close family members with those for Management Board members.

Stakeholder Input and Transparency

The revised policy considers input from stakeholders, reflecting feedback received during public workshops. The EMA seeks to balance the necessity for expert insights with the need to prevent conflicts of interest, ensuring both transparency and public trust.

Broader Application

The new policy will also be applicable to members of the EMA’s Emergency Task Force (ETF) and other executive steering groups. This change demonstrates EMA’s expanded roles in medical device oversight and crisis preparedness.

Overall, this revision highlights the EMA’s commitment to maintaining the integrity and impartiality of its scientific assessments. It will also ensure access to the best available expertise by effectively addressing the handling of competing interests.

Reference url

Recent Posts

Novo Nordisk performance
      

Business Dynamics: How Novo Nordisk Lost GLP-1 Market Share

🚀 Understand the market dynamics of Novo Nordisk’s GLP-1 Market Share Decline.

A case of demand underestimation, supply chain strain, and competitor agility. Using systems thinking, we unpack the dynamic forces behind Eli Lilly’s surge—and what strategic levers pharma leaders must pull to stay ahead.

#SyenzaNews #PharmaStrategy #MarketDynamics #NovoNordisk #EliLilly #GLP1

Tolebrutinib MS analysis
          

Tolebrutinib MS Analysis: Evaluating Economic Impact in SPMS

💡 Can tolebrutinib reshape the treatment landscape for progressive multiple sclerosis?

A recent report from the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review reveals promising insights on tolebrutinib, demonstrating a 31% reduction in disability progression for patients with non-relapsing secondary progressive MS. Yet, mixed outcomes and potential safety concerns raise critical questions about its long-term efficacy and market access.

Explore the nuances of this groundbreaking therapy and its implications for healthcare economics.

#SyenzaNews #HealthEconomics #MarketAccess

allopurinol Marfan syndrome orphan
       

Allopurinol Designated an Orphan Drug for Marfan Syndrome

🌟 What does the EMA’s orphan drug designation for allopurinol mean for those impacted by Marfan syndrome?

This groundbreaking move highlights a significant step forward in tackling rare diseases, offering hope to patients with limited treatment options. Allopurinol, traditionally used for gout, shows promise in addressing life-threatening aortic complications associated with Marfan syndrome, thanks to its antioxidant properties.

Dive into the implications of this development for healthcare innovation, patient access, and the future of rare disease treatment!

#SyenzaNews #HealthEconomics #Innovation #MarketAccess

When you partner with Syenza, it’s like a Nuclear Fusion.

Our expertise are combined with yours, and we contribute clinical expertise and advanced degrees in health policy, health economics, systems analysis, public finance, business, and project management. You’ll also feel our high-impact global and local perspectives with cultural intelligence.

SPEAK WITH US

CORRESPONDENCE ADDRESS

1950 W. Corporate Way, Suite 95478
Anaheim, CA 92801, USA

© 2025 Syenza™. All rights reserved.