Dataset Information

Regulatory Considerations for Gene Therapy Products in the US, EU, and Japan.

ABSTRACT: Developers of gene therapy products (GTPs) must adhere to additional regulation beyond that of traditional small-molecule therapeutics, due to the unique mechanism-of-action of GTPs and the subsequent novel risks arisen. We have provided herein a summary of the regulatory structure under which GTPs fall in the United States, the European Union, and Japan, and a comprehensive overview of the regulatory guidance applicable to the developer of GTP. Understanding the regulatory requirements for seeking GTP market approval in these major jurisdictions is crucial for an effective and expedient path to market. The novel challenges facing GTP developers is highlighted by a case study of alipogene tiparvovec (Glybera).

SUBMITTER: Halioua-Haubold CL

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5733859 | biostudies-literature | 2017 Dec

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Regulatory Considerations for Gene Therapy Products in the US, EU, and Japan.

Halioua-Haubold Celine-Lea CL Peyer James G JG Smith James A JA Arshad Zeeshaan Z Scholz Matthew M Brindley David A DA MacLaren Robert E RE

The Yale journal of biology and medicine 20171219 4

Developers of gene therapy products (GTPs) must adhere to additional regulation beyond that of traditional small-molecule therapeutics, due to the unique mechanism-of-action of GTPs and the subsequent novel risks arisen. We have provided herein a summary of the regulatory structure under which GTPs fall in the United States, the European Union, and Japan, and a comprehensive overview of the regulatory guidance applicable to the developer of GTP. Understanding the regulatory requirements for seek ...[more]

PMID: 29259533

Similar Datasets

Project description:Objective: The aim was to critically evaluate well-established regulatory agencies mAb biosimilar guidelines for development and marketing authorization about quality, efficacy and safety and compare to BRICS-TM regulations to identify challenges. Materials and Methods: The current valid guidelines of EMA, WHO, USFDA, BGTD/HC, ICH, and BRICS-TM were obtained from official websites and comparative qualitative review was performed. Results: The review revealed that Health Canada uses mAb specific guidelines from EMA or USFDA when necessary. The BRICS agencies (except Russia) have incorporated some or most of the WHO SBP TRS and related annexes in similar national biotechnological/biological guidelines; however, gaps or insufficient information have been identified. The Russian Federation has issued general product registration guideline/s with very brief information about mAbs. The TMMDA (Turkey) has published an updated biosimilar guideline which parallels those of the EMA and the ones from WHO; however, no mAb specific guidelines are published. COFEPRIS (Mexico) has published a biotechnological/biological product registration guideline with no information about mAb. The SAHPRA biosimilar guideline has an annex on mAbs which focuses on non-clinical and clinical aspects. The comparative evaluation of BRICS-TM agencies indicates a gap pertaining to clarification for physico-chemical characterization, manufacturing process, overages and compatibility requirements between biological substances and excipients specifically on mAbs. In vitro assay requirements seem quite aligned with those of WHO, whereas in vivo studies mostly have disparity in terms of necessity, type of studies as well as design and criteria. Clinical safety and efficacy studies are indicated in emerging regulatory agencies, however detailed information pertaining to design, size of populations, requirements for primary and secondary endpoints, clarity and evaluation criteria differ. In general, BRICS-TM agencies allow extrapolation of indications provided that pre-defined conditions are met. Interchangeability, switching and substitution of biosimilars are not defined in most of BRIC-TM guidelines whereas South Africa, by law, allows neither interchangeability nor substitution. Pediatric research remains questionable across BRICS-TM. Conclusions: EMA, USFDA guidelines are broadly aligned with WHO and in addition, they also contain specific requirements pertaining to their own region. BRICS-TM has considerably less defined mAb specific biosimilar development and comparability parameters in their published guidelines.

Dataset Information

Regulatory Considerations for Gene Therapy Products in the US, EU, and Japan.

Publications

Regulatory Considerations for Gene Therapy Products in the US, EU, and Japan.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets