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 06 March 2017 | By Michael Mezher
Advocacy nonprofit Public Citizen is calling on members of Congress to oppose several "right to try" bills, warning that the bills would undermine the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and provide false hope to patients.
In recent years more than 30 states have adopted right to try laws that seek to provide terminally ill patients access to unapproved drugs, with several new congressional efforts to create a federal right to try program.
The White House has signaled its support for right to try, with President Donald Trump suggesting that FDA stands in the way of terminally ill patients trying to access experimental drugs, and Vice President Mike Pence meeting with right to try advocates last month.
Now, in a letter sent to members of the House and Senate on Monday, Public Citizen warns that enacting federal right to try legislation could harm patients.
"We are concerned that false hope legislation like S. 204, H.R. 878 and H.R. 1020 would put countless patients at risk by dramatically undermining the FDA's role in ensuring that medical products are safe and effective before they become widely used," writes Public Citizen Director Michael Carome and researcher Sarah Sorscher.
The bills, they say, would expose patients to harm without affording them the safeguards provided by clinical trials or FDA's expanded access program, such as informed consent, institutional review board (IRB) review, and safety monitoring.
"Patients are also able to sue their doctor or the manufacturer for violating standards of care, including by failing to obtain fully informed consent. In addition, FDA prevents manufacturers from profiting from sale of drugs offered through the expanded access program," Sorscher told Focus.
However, Public Citizen also cautions that it's still unclear whether FDA's expanded access program has benefited patients who have accessed drugs through it.
"Many of the experimental products made available through this program ultimately are not shown to be safe and effective in clinical testing and are not approved or cleared by the FDA. Despite patients' hopes, there is no evidence that the current expanded access program helps more patients than it harms," Carome and Sorscher write.
Additionally, Sorscher told Focus that the right to try proposals before Congress do little to address one of the main barriers to providing patients unapproved drugs.
"FDA has granted 99% of the expanded access requests it receives. Generally, in cases where the patient does not gain access, it is because either his or her physician did not agree to assist, or the manufacturer did not agree to share the drug. The federal bills do nothing to compel manufacturers to provide these experimental products to patients," Sorscher said.
Public Citizen
Tags: Right to Try, Public Citizen
Regulatory Focus newsletters
All the biggest regulatory news and happenings.