Welcome to our new website! If this is the first time you are logging in on the new site, you will need to reset your password. Please contact us at raps@raps.org if you need assistance.
The site navigation utilizes arrow, enter, escape, and space bar key commands. Left and right arrows move across top level links and expand / close menus in sub levels. Up and Down arrows will open main level menus and toggle through sub tier links. Enter and space open menus and escape closes them as well. Tab will move on to the next part of the site rather than go through menu items.
The regulatory function is vital in making safe and effective healthcare products available worldwide. Individuals who ensure regulatory compliance and prepare submissions, as well as those whose main job function is clinical affairs or quality assurance are all considered regulatory professionals.
Share your knowledge and expertise with your regulatory peers by submitting an in-depth, evidence-based article focusing on key areas and emerging issues in the global regulatory landscape.
One of our most valuable contributions to the profession is the Regulatory Code of Ethics. The Code of Ethics provides regulatory professionals with core values that hold them to the highest standards of professional conduct.
Your membership opens the door to free learning resources on demand. Check out the Member Knowledge Center for free webcasts, publications and online courses.
Like all professions, regulatory is based on a shared set of competencies. The Regulatory Competency Framework describes the essential elements of what is required of regulatory professionals at four major career and professional levels.
Registration is now open for RAPS Convergence 2021! Gather with the regulatory community 12-15 September for four days of learning, engagement, and excitement.
Keep the sparks coming! Delegates of the conference have access to on-demand content until the end of October 2021.
This updated edition is a great reference for anyone working in multinational product development and marketing.
Regipedia is an interactive resource created to benefit RAPS members with 24/7 access to more than 2,300 regulatory terms.
Hear from leaders around the globe as they share insights about their experiences and lessons learned throughout their certification journey.
Posted 21 January 2015 | By Michael Mezher
Australia's medicines regulator, the Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA), has announced it will no longer implement a planned update to the way in which it names biosimilar products following a proposal by the World Health Organization to change a naming standard on which Australia relied for its policy.
Under TGA's original proposal, biosimilars would have been referred to using their Australian Biological Name (ABN) followed by the prefix “sim(a),” where “(a)” is the three-letter code for the biosimilar assigned by WHO's INN committee.
However, in an update published to its website on 20 January 2015, TGA said the policy, which relied in part on the WHO's Programme on International Nonproprietary Names (INN), will not be implemented following a proposed update to INN last July.
WHO's new draft policy, Biological Qualifier – An INN Proposal, revised the previously proposed naming convention for biosimilars. The draft policy now states that a biological qualifier will be applied “prospectively and retrospectively” to all biological substances given INNs. The biological qualifier will now consist of four letters.
In light of the change to INN, TGA will be conducting a review of its policy before determining how to proceed. In the meantime, TGA provided an interim policy for identifying biosimilars:
“Biosimilars will use the Australian Biological Name without a specific biosimilar identifier suffix, for example a biosimilar to the reference product Neupogen filgrastim would be ‘TRADENAME’ filgrastim.”
WHO cautions that without international consensus on a naming convention for biosimilars, a situation could emerge where the same biosimilar product could be given different non-proprietary names in different jurisdictions. WHO gives the example:
“An epoetin that is registered in Europe (European Medicines Agency/EMA) using the INN epoetin alfa was subsequently registered by Australia (Therapeutic Goods Administration/TGA) with the non- official but INN-like non-proprietary name epoetin lambda.”
The proposed solution in the draft proposal would be to use names such as “epoetin alfa bbbb.” WHO argues the adoption of their biological qualifier system would prevent the “proliferation of separate and distinct national qualifier systems.”
Biosimilars are typically defined in terms of their comparability to a reference product in terms of safety, quality and efficacy. By their nature, biosimilar products are not 100% equivalent to their reference products. This means that it is important for regulators and healthcare professionals to be able to distinguish biosimilars from the reference product. Additionally, biosimilars are not always accepted for substitution in a given jurisdiction, so it is important to avoid confusion when naming these products.
TGA Update
Tags: Biosimilars, INN, WHO, Naming, World Health Organization, Australian Biological Name, ABN, International Nonproprietary Names
Regulatory Focus newsletters
All the biggest regulatory news and happenings.