ANALYSIS of ALTERNATIVES and SOCIO-ECONOMIC ANALYSIS
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES and SOCIO-ECONOMIC ANALYSIS ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES and SOCIO-ECONOMIC ANALYSIS Non-confidential Report Legal name of applicant(s): Sanofi Pasteur Submitted by: Sanofi Pasteur Substance: 4-(1,1,3,3-Tetramethylbutyl) phenol, ethoxylated EC No: - CAS No: - Use title: Use of Octoxynol-9 for virus splitting and inactivation step in the manufacturing of influenza vaccines Use number: 1 Use number: 1 Sanofi Pasteur 1 ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES and SOCIO-ECONOMIC ANALYSIS CONTENTS LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ................................................................................................................. 7 GLOSSARY ........................................................................................................................................... 8 DECLARATION .................................................................................................................................... 9 SUMMARY .......................................................................................................................................... 10 1 AIMS AND SCOPE OF THE ANALYSIS .................................................................................. 15 1.1 Aims .................................................................................................................................... 15 1.2 Scope - use of the Annex XIV substance ............................................................................ 16 2 “APPLIED FOR USE” SCENARIO ............................................................................................. 17 2.1 Background information ..................................................................................................... 17 2.1.1 Influenza .............................................................................................................. 17 2.1.2 History of the influenza vaccine .......................................................................... 18 2.1.3 Regulatory requirements for medicinal products ................................................ 21 2.1.4 Safety of biological products ............................................................................... 22 2.2 Analysis of substance role................................................................................................... 22 2.2.1 Sanofi Pasteur’s influenza vaccine products ....................................................... 22 2.2.2 The biotechnological production process at Sanofi Pasteur ................................ 25 2.2.3 Performance parameters / key functionalities for alternative assessment ........... 28 2.3 Market and business trends including the use of the substance .......................................... 29 2.3.1 About Sanofi and Sanofi Pasteur ......................................................................... 29 2.3.2 The site concerned by this AfA: Val-de-Reuil .................................................... 30 2.3.3 Sanofi Pasteur as a supplier of Pandemic vaccines for the World Health Organization (WHO) and the French Ministry of Health .................................... 30 2.3.4 Recent investments in Val-de-Reuil .................................................................... 31 2.3.5 Other Sanofi Pasteur sites producing flu vaccines worldwide ............................ 31 2.3.6 Supply chain ........................................................................................................ 32 2.3.7 Financial and employment information related to the affected Sanofi Pasteur’s flu vaccines and operations in EEA .......................................................................... 33 2.3.8 Market, trends and Flu vaccine industry.............................................................. 34 2.4 Annual tonnage ................................................................................................................... 35 2.5 Remaining risk of the “applied for use” scenario ............................................................... 35 2.6 Environmental impacts of the applied for use scenario ...................................................... 36 2.6.1 Assessment of Octoxynol-9 emissions/releases and consequent environmental impacts ................................................................................................................. 36 2.6.2 Suggested approaches to perform the assessment: advice from a paper published by ECHA ............................................................................................................. 36 Use number: 1 Sanofi Pasteur 2 ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES and SOCIO-ECONOMIC ANALYSIS 2.6.3 Efforts to monetise environmental impacts of endocrine disrupting substances: taking advantage of the PBT and vPvB case to derive an auxiliary monetised value of impacts ............................................................................................................ 37 2.6.4 Qualitative assessment of environmental impacts in the applied for use scenario following the approach suggested by ECHA....................................................... 40 2.6.5 Derivation of an auxiliary monetary value for the environmental impacts based on the volume of Octoxynol-9 emissions ................................................................. 51 2.6.6 Conclusions on environmental impacts in the applied for use scenario .............. 53 3 SELECTION OF THE “NON-USE” SCENARIO ....................................................................... 53 3.1 Efforts made to identify alternatives ................................................................................... 53 3.1.1 Research and development .................................................................................. 53 3.1.2 Data searches ....................................................................................................... 54 3.1.3 Consultations ....................................................................................................... 54 3.2 Identification of known alternatives ................................................................................... 55 3.3 Assessment of the two potential strategies to substitute Octoxynol-9 ................................ 56 3.3.1 Main alternative: Transition to a new generation of flu vaccine ......................... 56 3.3.1.1 Technical feasibility ..................................................................................... 58 3.3.1.2 Availability of Alternative............................................................................ 60 3.3.1.3 Hazards and risks of alternative substances ................................................. 60 3.3.1.4 Economic Feasibility .................................................................................... 60 3.3.1.5 Conclusions .................................................................................................. 61 3.3.2 Substitution in the current Vaxigrip® process ..................................................... 61 3.3.2.1 Substance ID and properties ......................................................................... 61 3.3.2.2 Technical and Economical feasibility of substituting in the current process 61 3.3.2.3 Conclusions on substituting Octoxynol-9 in the current process ................. 63 3.4 Overview on BPIV development and substitution process ................................................. 63 3.4.1 Substitution tasks and timeline ............................................................................ 64 3.4.2 Transition period after launch of BPIV ............................................................... 68 3.5 The most likely non-use scenario (NUS) ............................................................................ 70 3.5.1 Scenario 1: Permanent shutdown of the production lines manufacturing flu vaccines in Val-de-Reuil (stop of production) AND relocation of production to a non-EEA country ................................................................................................. 71 3.5.2 Scenario 2: Permanent shutdown of the production lines manufacturing flu vaccines in Val-de-Reuil (stop of production) WITHOUT relocation to a non-EEA country ................................................................................................................. 73 3.5.3 Likelihood of the presented scenarios and definition of the most realistic NUS 74 4 IMPACTS OF NOT GRANTING AUTHORISATION ............................................................... 74 4.1 Public Health impact: Wider economic impacts ................................................................. 76 4.2 Economic impacts ............................................................................................................... 80 Use number: 1 Sanofi Pasteur 3 ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES and SOCIO-ECONOMIC ANALYSIS 4.2.1 Losses in terms of BOI for Sanofi Pasteur’s commercial operations and industrial Affairs due to the stop of flu vaccines production ............................................... 81 4.2.2 Restructuring costs appearing to Sanofi Pasteur when implementing the NUS .. 83 4.2.3 Summary of economic impacts for the applicant ................................................ 85 4.3 Environmental Impact ......................................................................................................... 85 4.4 Social impacts ..................................................................................................................... 86 4.5 Uncertainty analysis ...........................................................................................................