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 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.
Resources, news and special offers to support you and your professional development during this difficult time.
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.
Download your copy of the new events calendar and see all the online workshops, conferences, RAC exams and European online workshops RAPS has planned for 2021 at a glance.
Registration is now open for RAPS Euro Convergence 2021! Attend to join peers from EU and around the world to gain insights and exchange ideas on the regions most pressing issues.
An invaluable resource for any professional engaged in designing, composing, compiling, or commenting on regulatory documentation
From self-assessments to help you identify your strengths and areas to focus on to reference books and online courses that will help you fill in the gaps in your regulatory knowledge, RAPS has the resources to help you prepare for the RAC exam.
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.
Posted 26 April 2016 | By Zachary Brennan
Ten years into the European Medicines Agency’s (EMA) regulatory experiment to try to increase access to medicines in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) and the agency is seeing limited success, though enhancements outlined in a new report could increase the utility of the program.
Article 58 of Regulation (EC) No 726/2004, introduced first in 2004, allows EMA's Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use (CHMP) to give opinions, in co-operation with the World Health Organization (WHO), on drugs to prevent or treat diseases of major public health interest and intended exclusively for markets outside the EU.
Eligible treatments include vaccines used in the WHO Expanded Programme on Immunization or for protection against a public health priority disease, as well as medicines for WHO target diseases such as HIV/AIDS, malaria or tuberculosis.
For all positive CHMP opinions adopted under Article 58, EMA prepares and publishes a European public assessment report (EPAR) reflecting the scientific conclusions.
To date, seven medical products have been approved via Article 58, including:
A report evaluating the first decade of the use of Article 58 from the EMA, European Commission and Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation acknowledged that although only seven products have been approved, manufacturers have found the scientific advice received from EMA experts to be “extremely helpful” in shaping clinical plans and LMIC drug regulators that have been experts/observers during CHMP reviews have found the experience to be valuable.
Still, the report outlines five core barriers to Article 58 reaching its full potential:
1. Manufacturers are unclear/unconvinced of its benefits, and are reluctant to use it because a lack of prior successes.
2. The fees are burdensome or prohibitive (particularly the annual maintenance fees) for manufacturers.
3. Many national regulatory authorities (NRAs) outside the EU are unaware of Article 58 or consider it to be a “lower grade review,” as it does not confer EU marketing approval.
4. Even where opinions are well-accepted, the pace of national assessment is no quicker than with other approvals from stringent drug regulatory authorities, such as the US Food and Drug Administration.
5. Poor coordination between EMA and WHO, “both in terms of general logistics, and the management of variations and pharmacovigilance," limits the potential impact for both NRAs and manufacturers.
“These seven products have experienced mixed commercial success in the LMICs’ post-opinion,” the report says. “While over 60% of these products have been hampered by poor NRA recognition of Article 58 opinions, most of the products with positive opinion from Article 58 have suffered from poor commercial viability, unrelated to the regulatory pathway.”
In the short term, the report says the EC and EMA should:
“Analysis of the development pipeline confirms that there are up to 30 possible Article 58 candidates currently in development,” the report notes, adding that longer term considerations for Article 58 should include broadening its scope; Allowing simultaneous review of a product through the EMA’s central and Article 58 pathways; and introducing major new incentives, including possibly priority review vouchers or decreased fees on future products, or access to significant funding and strategic advice.
Article 58 Strategic Review – Summary
Defining the strategic vision for the EMA ‘Article 58’ process
Article 58 applications: Regulatory and procedural guidance
Tags: Article 58, LMIC medicines, vaccines, tuberculosis, drug approvals, NRAs
Regulatory Focus newsletters
All the biggest regulatory news and happenings.