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.
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.
Posted 17 November 2017
The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) this week began adding four-letter meaningless suffixes at the end of newly approved biologics' nonproprietary names, signaling a shift in policy from only adding the suffixes to biosimilars' nonproprietary names since 2015.
The first additions of the meaningless suffixes came for Thursday's approval of Roche's Hemlibra (emicizumab-kxwh), one of the first new medicines in nearly two decades to treat people with hemophilia A, and Wednesday's approval of Ultragenyx Pharmaceutical's Mepsevii (vestronidase alfa-vjbk) to treat pediatric and adult patients with a rare inherited condition called mucopolysaccharidosis type VII (MPS VII), also known as Sly syndrome.
The newly added suffixes were not preceded by an announcement from FDA, though the shift was not entirely unexpected.
Back in January, FDA finalized guidance on how biosimilars and their biologic reference products' names should include this four-letter, FDA-designated meaningless suffix attached at the end of the nonproprietary name.
But until this week, only new biosimilars had the suffixes attached to their names. The agency did not respond to a request for comment on why new biologics' nonproprietary names included the suffixes this week.
In addition, some biosimilars have yet to be assigned meaningless suffixes. For example, the first biosimilar approved by FDA was for Sandoz's Zarxio, the nonproprietary name of which included the suffix -sndz.
And though FDA has said in a proposed rule that it will change the name from "filgrastim-sndz" to "filgrastim-bflm," in addition to changing several others, the agency has gone back and forth on some of the provisions related to the new naming policy.
In June 2016, FDA proposed that sponsors would submit up to 10 proposed suffixes, "in the order of the applicant's preference," with "supporting analyses demonstrating that the proposed suffixes" meet factors described in guidance, though then the agency withdrew that plan.
Regardless of the twists and turns, FDA has made clear that it believes the suffixes are necessary.
"Nonproprietary names that include distinguishing suffixes can serve as a key element to identify specific products in spontaneous adverse event reporting and to reinforce accurate product identification in billing and claims records used for active pharmacovigilance," FDA explained previously. "Other product-specific identifiers, such as proprietary names or NDCs, may not be available or could change over time."
Tags: nonproprietary name, FDA biologics naming, naming policy for medicines
Regulatory Focus newsletters
All the biggest regulatory news and happenings.