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.
Posted 11 July 2017 | By Zachary Brennan
With the rise of Right-to-Try legislation across states in the US, it might seem like patients with serious or life-threatening ailments and no other comparable medical options might have difficulties in obtaining access to investigational drugs outside of a clinical trial because of the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA).
But a new Government Accountability Office report released Tuesday lends credence to many who have voiced concerns with the Right-to-Try laws, especially as the laws do not compel manufacturers to provide access to experimental drugs and as FDA approves more than 99% of all single-patient expanded access requests in emergency (often in less than a day) and non-emergency situations (within the 30 days allotted to the agency).
"From fiscal years 2012 through 2015, of the more than 2,300 emergency expanded access IND requests that were submitted, FDA’s median response time was within less than a day," the report says. And according to data released in March, FDA again granted more than 99% of all requests.
Last year, FDA also simplified its expanded access process and offered more guidance on expanded access.
And though GAO says the agency now offers "clear guidance on the expanded access data that must be submitted by physicians and manufacturers and recently took steps to communicate how it will use these data, the agency’s communication lacks clarity and specificity. In addition, this information is not consistently communicated in other documents that FDA uses to communicate with manufacturers about the program."
GAO also notes the rare but concerning aspect of expanded access for manufacturers, which is that companies "may be more likely to deny expanded access requests for fear that any adverse events associated with these often terminally ill patients may delay the development of the drug should FDA place a clinical hold due to the adverse event."
Such a situation has occurred at least once in the recent past.
"Such delays in clinical trials can have a significant impact on a manufacturer, especially on small companies trying to make a drug available to a larger patient population. Without clearly communicated information from FDA on how adverse event data from expanded access is used, manufacturers do not have the information they need to make informed decisions about expanded access," GAO says.
GAO also recommends that FDA Commissioner Scott Gottlieb "clearly communicate how the agency will use adverse event data from expanded access use when reviewing drugs and biologics for approval for marketing and sale in the United States."
GAO Report: FDA Has Taken Steps to Improve the Expanded Access Program but Should Further Clarify How Adverse Events Data Are Used
Tags: expanded access, compassionate use, GAO reports, adverse events
Regulatory Focus newsletters
All the biggest regulatory news and happenings.