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.
RAPS Euro Convergence brings regulatory peers from the EU and worldwide together in one forum to gain insights and exchange ideas on the region's most pressing issues. Register today to attend 10-12 May 2021.
Registration is now open for RAPS Convergence 2021! Gather with the regulatory community 12-15 September for four days of learning, engagement, and excitement.
With contributions from more than 30 authors from seven countries, the new edition incorporates a global overview of the field and is designed to help you get the most out of your regulatory intelligence endeavors.
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.
The RAPS store will be under maintenance Saturday, 17 April between 5 AM and 12 PM EST. Store functionality may be unavailable at times during this window. We apologize for any inconvenience caused during this time.
Posted 01 November 2016 | By Zachary Brennan
As the debate over skyrocketing drug prices continues, at least one solution has cropped up in nearly every conversation: Reduce the generic drug backlog at the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), create more competition and drug prices will come down.
But is the generic drug backlog, also known as the abbreviated new drug application (ANDA) backlog, that big of a problem? Or is confusion over what exactly this backlog means and how long it takes FDA to approve generic drugs creating the mirage of a problem?
First off, media outlets, from NPR to Stat, continue to say that FDA is “staring at” a backlog of more than 4,000 applications, or, in the case of NPR, that industry is “awaiting approval” of 4,036 ANDAs.
A closer look at the numbers and it’s clear neither of these statements are true. In fact, those numbers are about twice as high as the actual situation. As FDA said recently at a Generic Pharmaceutical Association meeting and as RBC Capital Markets noted in a long analysis on the backlog: There are only about 2,200 ANDAs physically with FDA.
The confusion stems from this term “pending,” which, indeed, there are more than 4,000 ANDAs “pending,” though about 1,800 of those 4,000 are awaiting a response from generic manufacturers, as they have already received Complete Response Letters (CRLs) from FDA, meaning the ANDAs are deficient and need to be resubmitted.
So, technically there are more than 4,000 applications pending, but for about half of those ANDAs, the companies aren’t awaiting approval and FDA isn’t staring at the applications because deficiencies have to be corrected. And some portion of those that have received CRLs may be withdrawn or not approved even in the next cycle.
As RBC notes, industry has been disappointed by this high rate of CRLs (there’s been an increase of 46% between 2015 and 2016), particularly because “FDA has been criticized for returning ANDA files back to manufacturers to address issues rather than increasing the amount of communication before action dates to ensure timely approvals.”
But is that criticism warranted?
In FDA’s defense, when the Generic Drug User Fee Agreement (GDUFA) came into effect five years ago, FDA had planned for an average of 750 ANDA submissions per year, but every year other than Fiscal Year 2015 has seen more than 750 submissions.
And what’s more, the majority of ANDAs submitted in the previous two years of GDUFA are still “on the clock” and likely to meet the performance goal dates as expected.
The criticism also comes as FDA approved the highest number of ANDAs in FY 2016 ever, and as RBC says, that high approval rate is likely to “continue to accelerate going forward.” As industry responds to the CRLs, and assuming these deficiencies are adequately addressed, RBC also points out that “the turnaround time could be less than a year and as we move forward we would expect those timelines to potentially improve.”
Furthermore, for those ANDAs submitted prior to 2014, there are fewer than 100 ANDAs that have been left untouched by FDA, with no communication to industry.
Back to the question of lower drug prices in general, RBC data shows that the issue of a lack of generic competition isn’t so much of an issue of FDA’s speed in bringing this competition to market, but in industry submitting applications that would create this competition.
For instance, there are only 23 innovator drugs with ANDAs pending and no patent or exclusivity protection. That means there’s only 23 ANDAs awaiting approval or a CRL and nothing else stopping the generic drugmakers from bringing competition to the market except for FDA.
But there are another 125 innovator drugs with no approved generics and no ANDAs submitted.
Another semi-myth worth dispelling from the NPR piece is that “the median time it takes for the FDA to approve a generic is now 47 months.”
When viewed alongside the 10-month approval time for new drugs, that 47 months seems astounding.
But as FDA’s Janet Woodcock has explained to congressmen, that 47 month figure includes ANDAs lingering since before the first year of GDUFA.
What’s more is that the median time to market has fallen considerably as GDUFA has progressed. For the fastest 5% of ANDAs approved under GDUFA, the median approval time has gone from about 24 months in FY 2013 to less than 15 months in FY 2015.
Under the next iteration of GDUFA, which will take effect in FY2018, ANDA standard review time will likely be 10 months from submission and priority review would be eight months from submission. Compare those with the 42- to 44-month average approval time prior to GDUFA and it’s easy to see why FDA can be sensitive to criticism that GDUFA is not working.
However, ANDA submissions do continue to outpace approvals and criticism of the median approval times does seem warranted when considering that it takes FDA only 10 months to review and approve much more complex new drug submissions.
As RBC notes, “We have just begun to see [ANDA] approvals begin to meaningfully ramp and as this continues we expect that annual approvals will outpace submissions which in effect will begin to reduce ‘backlog’ whether defined as ANDAs at FDA or otherwise.”
Tags: generic drug approvals, drug prices, high drug prices, ANDA approvals, generic drug backlog, FDA backlog
Regulatory Focus newsletters
All the biggest regulatory news and happenings.