Centre for Medicines Research Workshop – serie

Regulatory review is the last major development hurdle that must be passed by a new medicine before it reaches the market. At a time when pharmaceutical companies are reviewing their R&D strategies, and attempting to reduce drug development times, it is extremely important that the review process is made as efficient as possible. The 11th CMR Workshop, held in September 1995, provided the opportunity for regulatory authority and industry personnel from Europe, North America, Australia and Japan to openly discuss views and exchange experiences on the subject of improving the review process. The proceedings of this meeting provide a comprehensive overview of the current review process around the world. The contributors describe the present situation and highlight company strategies and regulatory initiatives to improve the review process. This volume also summarises the suggestions that were developed by the participants, covering many facets of this process, including the quality and size of the dossier, dialogue, submission strategies, feedback and the response to questions.

At a time when it is becoming usual for medicines to be developed for a global market and pharmaceutical companies are endeavouring to expedite the drug development process, Regulatory authorities are concentrating on improving their efficiency and effectiveness. Therefore, it is not surprising that questions are being asked as to how performance might be measured and compared between different authorities who are now often in receipt of dossiers that have been submitted to several agencies at the same time. Issues such as "what target should be set for the review of new medicines?" and "how can quality be assured?" are now considered to be of critical importance. The 12th CMR International Workshop, held in January 1997, provided the opportunity for regulatory authority and industry personnel from Europe, North America, Australia and Japan to openly discuss experiences and exchange views on how to improve the review process. The proceedings of this meeting provide a comprehensive overview of the current review process in different countries and the need for performance measures and targets.This volume summarizes the many suggestions that were debated at the workshop, and includes chapters on measuring performance, and on the integration of quality into the review process.

Considerable investment has been made by both pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies in pharmaceutical products of biotechnology. However, because relatively few of these products have been marketed, lack of relevant experience means that uncertainty still surrounds the most appropriate strategy for their safety evaluation. The 13th CMR International Workshop, held in February 1997, provided the opportunity for regulatory authority and industry experts from Europe, Japan and the USA to share their experiences of designing safety evaluation programmes for specific product classes: colony stimulating factors, growth factors, hormones, interferons, interleukins, monoclonal antibodies for therapeutic use, and gene therapy products. Participants worked together to recommend those studies that should be considered for such safety evaluation, and those that may be unnecessary. These recommendations subsequently made a valuable contribution to the ICH guideline "Safety Studies for Biotechnological Products", which was finalized at ICH 4 in Brussels in July 1997.

There is currently limited acceptance of foreign clinical data by regulatory authorities, although the reasons for repeating studies are poorly defined. There are some proven genetic differences in drug metabolism and elimination which occur with varying frequencies in different populations. In addition, there are differences in culture, environment and medical practice which can impact on drug reponsiveness. This book, a further edition in the CMR Workshop Series, reviews the proceedings of a workshop held in London in July 1993 to address these issues. The contributors review the current situation, address the scientific basis for repeating clinical trials in different ethnic groups, consider specific examples, and assess the relevance of inter-ethnic and environmental differences in responsiveness for drug development.

For a research-based pharmaceutical company to be successful in the 1990s. it must have a strategic plan for the global development of new chemical entities. Global development can be defined as an attempt to reach all major markets as rapidly as possible and for many companies these will include the United States. Japan. Germany. France. Italy. UK and Canada. which together represent approximately 85% of the pharmaceutical market in the developed world. The mutual acceptance of foreign clinical data would reduce the time and resources required to develop a new medicine for the international market by eliminating the requirement for the routine repetition of clinical studies in local populations. In Japan this has been largely based on the belief that genetic differences in respon­ siveness may result in a different benefit/risk assessment for a new mediCine. while requests in Europe and the United States for local data relate mainly to methodological and cultural considerations. The importance of this issue has been recognised internationally as it was one of the topics discussed at the International Conference on Harmonisation in Orlando (October 1993) and it is currently on the programme for ICH3 which will be convened in Yokohama in Japan in November 1995.

At a time when it is becoming usual for medicines to be developed for a global market and pharmaceutical companies are endeavouring to expedite the drug development process, Regulatory Authorities are concentrating on improving their efficiency and effectiveness. Therefore, it is not surprising that questions are being asked as to how performance might be measured and compared between different authorities who are now often in receipt of dossiers that have been submitted to several agencies at the same time. Issues such as 'what target should be set for the review of new medicines?' and `how can quality be assured?' are now considered to be of critical importance. The twelfth CMR International Workshop, held in January 1997, provided the opportunity for Regulatory Authority and industry personnel from Europe, North America, Australia and Japan to openly discuss experiences and exchange views on how to improve the review process. The proceedings of this meeting provide a comprehensive overview of the current review process in different countries and the need for performance measures and targets. This volume summarises the many suggestions that were debated at the Workshop, and includes chapters on measuring performance, and on the integration of quality into the review process.

Considerable investment has been made by both pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies in pharmaceutical products of biotechnology. However, because relatively few of these products have been marketed, lack of relevant experience means that uncertainty still surrounds the most appropriate strategy for their safety evaluation. The 13th CMR International Workshop, held in February 1997, provided the opportunity for regulatory authority and industry experts from Europe, Japan and the USA to share their experiences of designing safety evaluation programmes for specific product classes: colony stimulating factors, growth factors, hormones, interferons, interleukins, monoclonal antibodies for therapeutic use, and gene therapy products. Participants worked together to recommend those studies that should be considered for such safety evaluation, and those that may be unnecessary. These recommendations subsequently made a valuable contribution to the ICH guideline `Safety Studies for Biotechnological Products', which was finalised at ICH 4 in Brussels in July 1997. The Workshop proceedings not only describe the recommendations but also provide the reader with an appreciation of the science behind safety evaluation strategies used by experts, the influence of different regulatory systems on these strategies, and the type of data required by both toxicologists and clinicians before they have sufficient confidence to administer pharmaceutical products of biotechnology to humans.