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 21 June 2016 | By Zachary Brennan
The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) on Tuesday withdrew a document submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) that offered new details on how biosimilar developers would submit an ordered list of 10 random suffixes as part of the naming process for biologics and biosimilars.
The document, first published 1 June, suggested a shift in FDA’s proposal on biologic and biosimilar naming as it altered the number of random suffixes proposed by developers (from three to 10) and also asked the companies to list them in their order of preference, which called into question the randomness of the suffixes.
FDA spokesman Kristofer Baumgartner told Focus: “The publication of the notice was an administrative error. FDA continues to review comments and work on a final guidance.”
Dr. Leah Christl, FDA’s biosimilar lead, responded to a question on the document submitted to OMB yesterday at a panel discussion on biosimilars and added that 10 was an arbitrary number the agency chose and not an indicator of a reversal toward the use of meaningful suffixes.
The document that is now withdrawn also responded to some of the comments made on the draft biosimilar naming guidance, noting, “Many comments suggested that a meaningful, distinguishable suffix may help to improve pharmacovigilance, enhance safety, and facilitate identification between biological products. Some comments supported use of a random suffix to avoid creating an unfair advantage for specific manufacturers.”
In August 2015, that draft guidance proposed a naming convention to distinguish biological products through the use of a randomly assigned unique four-letter suffix following the product's nonproprietary name.
The agency offered an example of where a reference biologic could be assigned a suffix such as "replicamab-cznm," while a related biosimilar could be named "replicamab-hixf."
Other comments on the draft guidance, according to the document submitted to OMB, suggested a higher burden related to coming up with the proposed non-proprietary names so FDA revised its “estimate upward to account for burden associated with creating and submitting up to 10 proposed suffixes for designation.”
Withdrawal of Notice
Tags: biosimilar names, biosimilar suffixes
Regulatory Focus newsletters
All the biggest regulatory news and happenings.