Literature DB >> 16357020

The advisory process for anticancer drug regulation: a global perspective.

A T Farrell1, I Papadouli, A Hori, M Harczy, B Harrison, W Asakura, M Marty, R Dagher, R Pazdur.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: This paper summarizes the role of external advisors in oncology drug development and regulation from a global perspective.
DESIGN: Recently, representatives from the United States Food and Drug Administration, European Medicines Agency, the Japanese Pharmaceuticals and Medical Devices Agency, the Australian Therapeutic Goods Administration and Health Canada held a meeting in conjunction with the American Society of Clinical Oncology meeting. The role of external advisors in oncology drug development and regulation in each of these jurisdictions was presented and discussed.
RESULTS: All regulatory bodies described have experience with two forms of outside expertise: advice from individual experts and advice from a group of experts assembled as an advisory group. Regulatory jurisdictions use individual experts variably. In some regions, individual experts provide advice based on knowledge and experience during the drug development phase or in the planning phase for the submission of a drug registration package. In other regions, these individuals serve as external evaluators with the primary responsibility for the review of a clinical trials package submitted for drug registration. Advisory boards have been formalized in all jurisdictions discussed. Advisory boards have a role in discussing specific applications as well as broad policy issues. A common theme is a composition of a core panel of experts with augmentation by additional expertise as needed for consideration of specific scientific questions. In all jurisdictions, advisory board recommendations are not binding on the regulatory body.
CONCLUSIONS: Global oncology drug development and registration involves the use of experts by regulatory authorities. The types of experts needed, the expert's role and the transparency of the advisory process reflect the individual needs in different regions.

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2005        PMID: 16357020     DOI: 10.1093/annonc/mdj099

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Ann Oncol        ISSN: 0923-7534            Impact factor:   32.976


  3 in total

1.  The notorious "drug lag" for oncology drugs in Japan.

Authors:  Kan Yonemori; Akihiro Hirakawa; Masashi Ando; Taizo Hirata; Mayu Yunokawa; Chikako Shimizu; Noriyuki Katsumata; Kenji Tamura; Yasuhiro Fujiwara
Journal:  Invest New Drugs       Date:  2011-02-01       Impact factor: 3.850

Review 2.  Regulatory approval pathways for anticancer drugs in Japan, the EU and the US.

Authors:  Sumimasa Nagai; Keiya Ozawa
Journal:  Int J Hematol       Date:  2016-04-15       Impact factor: 2.490

Review 3.  Anticancer Plants: A Review of the Active Phytochemicals, Applications in Animal Models, and Regulatory Aspects.

Authors:  Tariq Khan; Muhammad Ali; Ajmal Khan; Parveen Nisar; Sohail Ahmad Jan; Shakeeb Afridi; Zabta Khan Shinwari
Journal:  Biomolecules       Date:  2019-12-27
  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.