Comparison of median approval time of NASs by year of submission vs

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
ALB-3 Paper 1 Headline Measures and Business Intelligence Data Pack.
Advertisements

"Determining the Regulatory Pathway to Market" Classification Heather S. Rosecrans Director, 510(k) Staff Office of Device Evaluation Center for Devices.
Professor Stuart Walker BSc PhD MFPM FIBiol FRSC FRCPath FIstD Director CMR International UK.
The Life Sciences Lawyer’s Guide to PTA and PTE
Biopharmaceutical Regulatory Requirements 40. Marketing Authorization for New Chemical Entities Health Canada’s (HC) Therapeutic Products Directorate.
Stakeholders In Clinical Research Government and Regulatory Bodies Professor Phil Warner.
ICH V1 An FDA Update Min Chen, M.S., RPh Office of Drug Safety Center for Drug Evaluation and Research FDA January 21, 2003.
Authorisation of medicinal products: selected challenges Rocío Salvador Roldán Pharmaceuticals Unit/DG SANCO This presentation only reflects the views.
Review of veterinary medicines legislation in 2010 Mario Nagtzaam Unit F2 „Pharmaceuticals“ Directorate-General Enterprise and Industry European Commission.
Best Archival Practice in the Regulation of Medicines: Work on the Guidelines for Agencies for Medicinal Products Ph.D. Arian Rajh Agency for Medicinal.
Biotechnology Chemical Pharmaceutical Customer Partnership
Health and Consumers Health and Consumers Commission view on the implementation of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 ECPA/ECCA Brussels Regulatory Conference.
GMP- A Regulatory Perspective. Regulatory Perspective in entering Global Pharma Markets.
U.S. Food and Drug Administration Notice: Archived Document The content in this document is provided on the FDA’s website for reference purposes only.
The association between European Medicines Agency approval and Health Technology Assessment recommendations Iga Lipska 1,2, Anke Hövels 2, Neil McAuslane.
1 M O N T E N E G R O Negotiating Team for the Accession of Montenegro to the European Union Working Group for Chapter 29 – Customs union Bilateral screening:
Compassionate use programs and the European regulatory system Filip Josephson M.D., Ph.D. Clinical Assessor.
The potential contribution of increased new drug use to Russian longevity and health Frank R. Lichtenberg Columbia University.
© Copyright IBM 2007DIA ERS SIAC Presentation, January 2008 The HL7 RPS and SPL Standards - A High Level View Terry Hardin Sr. IT Architect Emerging Software.
ICORD 2006 Kerstin Westermark Md, PhD, Assoc. prof. COMP Chairperson.
An agency of the European Union EU ISO IDMP Roadmap to enable eprescription cross-borders Towards a trans-atlantic solution to univocally identify medicinal.
Regulatory Updates Health Sciences Authority Singapore
POST APPROVAL CHANGE MANAGEMENT PROTOCOLS IN THE EUROPEAN UNION
New legislation impacting IMP
Safety in the Pharmacy.
Paediatric Medicine: The Paediatric Investigation Plan
The Life Sciences Lawyer’s Guide to PTA and PTE
Post-publication advertising system in Japan
Information on Medicinal Products
Bilateral screening: Chapter 1
EudraCT V10 and the clinical trial regulation
Balancing Pre and Postmarket Requirements Different Scenarios
Assessing a national PIC system
Biotechnology Chemical Pharmaceutical Customer Partnership
The percentage of NASs approved by CDER
Multinational collaboration in the Authorisation of VMPs: the EU approach VICH Outreach Forum Tokyo, Nov 2017 Noel Joseph European Commission.
CONDITIONAL MARKETING AUTHORISATION
NASs approval time by therapeutic area:
Median 25th and 75th percentile
New economies: Scenarios with a likelihood >50% and impact
Median approval time for new active substances approved by ICH agencies by approval year Methodology For each new active substance (NAS) approved between.
Percentage Key Message
Median submission gap, median approval time and percentage approved as expedited for new active substances (NASs) approved by six authorities:
Median time to internationalisation
This study was conducted using the CIRS EMaRReT database, which tracks new medicines and line extensions in 15 Emerging Markets (Argentina, Brazil, Mexico,
New active substance median approval time for six regulatory authorities in Key messages The last decade, , saw a continuation.
Comparison of median approval time of NASs by year of submission vs
New active substances approved by EMA and FDA over 10 years
EMA: The European Medicines Agency
From Regulatory Approval to Subsidized Patient Access in the Asia-Pacific Region: A Comparison of Systems Across Australia, China, Japan, Korea, New Zealand,
“Metro Map” analysis of FDA facilitated regulatory pathways and their influence on median approval times  The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has.
Building quality in HTA process and decision making
Fundamentals of Electronic Submissions and eCTD
Rollout time breakdown: 24 common NASs in 7 jurisdictions
INTERNATIONALISATION – FOCUS ON EMA AND FDA
Although overall confidence remains high, the level of trust in research scientists may vary based on their perceived responsibilities. In a recent exploratory.
PRISMA study flow diagram
Median, Box : 25th and 75th percentiles
Assessment routes and timelines in Australia (2011)
Regulatory procedure with scrutiny
Эмийн гаж нөлөөг бүртгэн мэдээлэх, ач холбогдол
Prescription vs. OTC.
Presenter Name(s) National Student Loan Cohort Default Rates
EUnetHTA Assembly May 2018.
Out of the 52 NASs approved by all six authorities during :
Median times to submission and licensing for 70 new active substances approved in five markets from 1997 to 2010 Note: EMA approval.
Regulatory review process: What are enablers?
Process mapping of registration to reimbursement for new pharmaceuticals in UK Description: A systematic methodology was developed in order to create the.
Assessment routes and timelines
EU Regulatory Pathways for ATMPs: Standard, Accelerated and Adaptive Pathways to Marketing Authorisation  Giulia Detela, Anthony Lodge  Molecular Therapy.
Presentation transcript:

Comparison of median approval time of NASs by year of submission vs Comparison of median approval time of NASs by year of submission vs. approval: 2003-2012 * * * Objective: Comparison of median approval times for NASs approved by the year of submission vs. approval: 2003-2012 Key Messages Regulatory approval times are often a marker for the regulatory environment and can be viewed either by the year of approval, or the year of submission. Analysing review times by the year of submission enables tracking of compounds submitted within the same regulatory environment. The median approval time for new active substances (NASs), approved by European Medicines Agency (EMA), United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and Japan’s Pharmaceuticals and Medical Devices Agency (PMDA), was calculated by year of submission and year of approval. Time was calculated from the date of submission to the agency, to the date of approval. The analysis by year of submission is based on products tracked to the end of 2013. Because the majority of products submitted in 2013 will be approved in subsequent years, 2013 was not included in this analysis as the figure would not be an accurate reflection of a median. Similarly, it is possible that this figure may change over time, particularly for products submitted in 2012, which may not have yet been approved. Both year of submission and year of approval analysis show variation in approval times over the last 10 years. This is reflective of the different approval systems in the countries and can be indicative of the system or changes within the approval process during the time period; for example, for EMA, the two lines mirror each other reasonably well as the approval timelines are under a legal framework and there is only a small amount of variation seen (if any) between the year of submission and the year of approval. Both lines show a reduction in approval time following legislative changes adopted in 2005 (Directive 2004/27/EC), which lead to a reduction in the European Commission decision time from 3 months to approximately 2 months. For PMDA, we can see a divergence of the two lines during a time range 2003-2007 and this would suggest that although new compounds were being submitted post-2003, they were approved more rapidly. This is reflective of the new PMDA process and procedures post-2004 (prior to this time approvals were by the MHLW), but also indicates that there were a number of legacy products in the system which had been submitted prior to 2003 and as such increased the overall approval times when analysed by the year of approval. For FDA, over 2008-2012, there has been a convergence of the submission and approval lines, indicating consistency of approval time. EMA FDA PMDA * Please note that approval times by year of submission may not be an accurate reflection of the cohort, particularly 2012, as some compounds submitted in 2012 may not have been approved by the end of 2013.