Skip to main content

Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategies Guidance for Pharmaceutics and Biologics

BayBiotech.NET




FDA has posted draft guidance for Proposed Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategies (REMS), REMS Assessments, and Proposed REMS Modifications on its website. The draft guidance has been posted in September 2009 and is open for comments and feedbacks from all that may have an interest
in the subject.
In a nutshell, the guidance authorizes FDA to require the applicants of NDA (new drug applications), ANDAs (abbreviated new drug applications), and biologics license applications (BLAs) to submit a proposed
Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategies (REMS) within 180 days once notified by FDA and may come to the applicant, if FDA becomes aware that such a strategy might be necessary to ensure that the benefits of the drug outweigh the risks of the drug in question.
Before September 2007, when the Food and Drug Administration Amendments Act of 2007 (FDAAA) was signed, FDA used to approve a small number of drug and biological products with risk minimization action plans (RiskMAPs) that was considered to be a strategic safety program designed to meet specific goals and objectives in minimizing known risks of a product while preserving its benefits.
RiskMAPs were developed for products that had risks that required additional risk management strategies beyond describing the risks and benefits of the product in labeling and performing required safety reporting.

Since now FDAAA has given FDA the authority to require REMS when necessary to ensure that the benefits of a drug outweigh the risks, if FDA determines even after approval of the product, that a REMS is necessary even if the drug had satisfied the RiskMAP requirements, the involved party may have to submit REMS plans if notified by the agency.
Although, there are number of overlaps that eventually will be carried over from RiskMAPs to REMS,
to further understand the details of the expected content of REMS submission, follow the link provided here:

http://www.fda.gov/downloads/Drugs/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/Guidances/UCM184128.pdf

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Harmonization by Doing (HBD): Japan & U.S. Collaboration

BayBiotech.NET HBD is an international cooperative effort by Japan and US for regulatory convergence for Medical Devices. The efforts are focused on to develop global clinical trials and address regulatory barriers for timely device approvals. To address the needs for additional evaluation, the HBD initiative is a pilot project launched jointly by FDA and MHLW-PMDA for the premarket review of device cardiovascular technology. Instead of taking a theoretical approach to harmonization, HBD is focused on Proof of concept by utilizing parallel development, application submissions and review of actual medical device projects. HBD Study intends to collect and analyze regulatory submission data from multiple applications in the U.S. and Japan. The purpose of the study is to further understand differences that may exist with format and content, to define best practices and to improve globally harmonized processes. To read more about the HBD program, follow the link: http://www.fda.gov/M...
Post a Comment
Read more

Amendments for High Risk Device Type Regulatory Pathway

BayBiotech.NET Government Accounting Office (“GAO”) has issued a long-awaited report evaluating the use of the 510(k) process by the Food and Drug Administration (“FDA” or the “Agency”) in the January of 2009. Report mainly focused on Preamendment class III devices. Although most high-risk class III medical devices are subject to the demanding premarket approval (“PMA”) process, preamendment class III devices may be cleared through the 510(k) pathway until FDA issues regulations requiring a PMA. Under the Safe Medical Devices Act of 1990, FDA was required either to reclassify preamendment class III devices into class I or II, or (2) issue regulations requiring PMA approval for the devices, GAO noted that 20 preamendment class III device types have not yet been addressed by the Agency. GAO has urged FDA to take required steps to address the remaining class III devices that continue to be eligible for 510(k) review. As a result of the report, FDA has committed to address al...
Post a Comment
Read more

Risk Based Clinical Monitoring

BayBiotech.NET FDA's recommendation of Risk Based Monitoring of Clinical Trials , as published in their Draft Guidance in August 2011. For the first time, FDA provided guidance on monitoring of clinical investigations in 1988 which was recently withdrawn, stated that the “most effective way” to monitor an investigation was to “maintain personal contact between the monitor and the investigator throughout the clinical investigation.” At the time the guidance was issued, sponsors had only limited ways to effect meaningful communication with investigators other than through on-site visits.   This guidance recommends an assessment by the sponsor for the need of 100% on-site monitoring. Such an assessment may be based on the complexity of the study protocol and not be generally applicable to all trial types. It explains the importance of remote monitoring facilitated by the use of electronic data capture system (EDC) and also emphasizes the need of the identifying crit...
1 comment
Read more