首页> 外文期刊>Journal of Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical Sciences >Similarities and Differences of International Practices and Procedures for the Regulation for Active Substance Master Files/Drug Master Files of Human Use: Moving Toward Regulatory Convergence
【24h】

Similarities and Differences of International Practices and Procedures for the Regulation for Active Substance Master Files/Drug Master Files of Human Use: Moving Toward Regulatory Convergence

机译:人体活性物质主档案/药品主档案管理的国际惯例和程序的异同:迈向监管趋同

获取原文
           

摘要

Purpose. A gap analysis survey of international practices for Active Substance Master Files (ASMFs)/Drug Master Files (DMFs) of human use was conducted as a project of the ASMF/DMF working group of the International Generic Drug Regulators Pilot (IGDRP) to identify similarities and differences among ASMF/DMF procedures of 10 IGDRP members and 2 observers. Methods. We conducted a questionnaire survey and compared the following aspects: overall ASMF/DMF procedures, submission requirements for ASMFs/DMFs, assessment processes for ASMFs/DMFs, the technical requirements for active pharmaceutical ingredients (APIs), generation of assessment reports for ASMFs/DMFs, procedures for changing ASMF/DMF details, and Good Manufacturing Practice (GMP) inspection/certification of API manufacturers. Twelve organizations participated in this project: the Brazilian Health Surveillance Agency (Anvisa), the European Union (EU), Health Canada (HC), the Singapore Health Sciences Authority (HSA), the South African Medicines Control Council (MCC), the South Korean Ministry of Food and Drug Safety (MFDS), the Japanese Pharmaceuticals and Medical Devices Agency (PMDA), the Swiss Agency for Therapeutic Products (Swissmedic), the Taiwan Food and Drug Administration (TFDA), the Australian Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA), the European Directorate for the Quality of Medicines & HealthCare (EDQM) (Observer) and the Prequalification Team (PQT) of the World Health Organization (WHO), which includes the PQT–Medicines (Observer). Results. Although there were many similarities among the participating agencies surveyed, there were also differences that should be discussed such as assessment processes of ASMFs/DMFs and Technical requirements for APIs. Conclusions. These differences revealed by this survey will be key considerations in order to facilitate the filing of ASMFs/DMFs globally and to establish a framework for sharing and utilizing information related to ASMFs/DMFs among IGDRP members in the future. This article is open to POST-PUBLICATION REVIEW . Registered readers (see “For Readers”) may comment by clicking on on the issue’s contents page.
机译:目的。作为国际通用药物监管者试验(IGDRP)的ASMF / DMF工作组的一个项目,对人类使用的活性物质主文件(ASMF)/药物主文件(DMF)的国际惯例进行了差距分析调查,以发现相似之处10个IGDRP成员和2个观察员的ASMF / DMF程序之间的差异。方法。我们进行了问卷调查,并比较了以下方面:ASMF / DMF的总体程序,ASMF / DMF的提交要求,ASMF / DMF的评估流程,活性药物成分(API)的技术要求,ASMF / DMF的评估报告的生成,更改ASMF / DMF详细信息的过程以及API制造商的良好生产规范(GMP)检查/认证。十二个组织参与了该项目:巴西卫生监督局(Anvisa),欧盟(EU),加拿大卫生部(HC),新加坡卫生科学局(HSA),南非药品管制委员会(MCC),南方韩国食品药品安全部(MFDS),日本药品和医疗器械局(PMDA),瑞士治疗产品局(Swissmedic),台湾食品药品管理局(TFDA),澳大利亚治疗药物管理局(TGA) ,欧洲药品和医疗质量局(EDQM)(观察员)和世界卫生组织(WHO)的资格预审小组(PQT),其中包括PQT-药物(观察员)。结果。尽管参与调查的机构之间有许多相似之处,但也应讨论差异,例如ASMF / DMF的评估流程和API的技术要求。结论。此调查显示的这些差异将成为主要考虑因素,以促进在全球范围内提交ASMF / DMF,并为将来IGDRP成员之间建立共享和利用与ASMF / DMF相关的信息的框架。本文对POST-PUBLICATION REVIEW开放。已注册的读者(请参阅“针对读者”)可以通过单击问题的内容页面来发表评论。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号