国家食品药品监管局将建立仿制药注册信息提示机制

按照全国科技大会关于建立科技创新体制的要求，在药品注册中，国家食品药品监管局将逐步建立完善引导药品生产企业加强创新药物研究的注册制度，对于仿制药品的注册申请将建立注册提示机制，即当某一品种的仿制注册申请达到一定数量时，发布提示信息，提醒生产企业和药品研发单位谨慎申请，进一步遏制企业对仿制药品无序申报的现象。     

美国生物仿制行业对欧洲监管模式说“不”

在美国迈阿密召开的国际通用名药品联盟（IGPA）年会上，美国通用名协会（GPA）主席Bruce Downey称，仿制行业希望美国采取由申请人首先提出产品申请的模式，而不是按照欧盟的生物仿制产品监管模式，即由欧洲药品局制定一系列产品指南，申请人依照指南确定生物仿制产品应遵循的相应法律程序。GPA期望对生物仿制产品采用类似新药申请或者简化新药申请的方式。     

山东淄博在全国率先颁布器械管理地方性规章

近日，国家食品药品监督管理局将逐步建立完善引导药品生产企业加强创新药物研究的注册制度，对于仿制药品的注册申请将建立注册提示机制，即当某一品种的仿制注册申请达到一定数量时，发布提示信息，提醒生产企业和药品研发单位谨慎申请，进一步遏制企业对仿制药品无序申报的现象。     

SFDA将建立仿制药注册信息提示机制

本刊讯据悉,按照全国科技大会关于建立科技创新体制的要求,在药品注册中,国家食品药品监管局将逐步建立完善引导药品生产企业加强创新药物研究的注册制度,对于仿制药品的注册申请将建立注册提示机制,即当某一品种的仿制注册申请达到一定数量时,发布提示信息,提醒生产企业和药品     

欧盟化学仿制药品注册申报简介

通过介绍欧盟药品监管体制、化学仿制药品申报资料要求与申请程序,解析欧盟化学仿制药注册法规的相关内容。帮助中国制药企业进入欧盟医药市场做指导,推动中国药品出口事业的增长。     

仿制药品审批办法

第一条　为加强对仿制药品的审批管理,保障人民用药安全有效,促进制药工业的健康发展,根据《中华人民共和国药品管理法》及其有关规定,特制定本办法。第二条　仿制药品系指仿制国家已批准正式生产、并收载于国家药品标准（包括《中国生物制品规程》）的品种。试行标准的药品及受国家行政保护的品种不得仿制。第三条　申请仿制药品的企业必须是取得《药品生产企业许可证》、《药品ＧＭＰ证书》的企业或车间。第四条　仿制药品的质量不得低于被仿制药品,使用说明书等应与被仿制药品保持一致。第五条　国家鼓励创新和技术进步,控制仿制药…     

我国仿制药申请量去年下降近5成

据新华社信息,国家食品药品监管局药品注册司司长张伟日前表示,2008年我国仿制药申请量比上年同期下降近5成。由于仿制药申请和简单改剂型等药品注册申请的数量大幅下降,其中仿制药申请比2006年和2007年同期分别下降了85％和46％,导致国家食品药品监管局2008年受理的药品注册申请数量总体大幅下降,仅为3413件,比2006年和2007年同期分别下降了75％和18％。     

美国仿制药的新管理计划

2003年6月12日美国FDA在其网站公布了促进仿制药发展及使用的新政策、新举动;6月18日发布了"药品专利登记及ANDA停审期的管理规定".ANDA( Abbreviated New Drug Application)为简化申请,在美国,仿制药申请属于其中一类[1],本文中指仿制药申请.FDA的职责之一是保证所批准并使用的仿制药品像原创药品一样安全、有效.在美国,原创处方药的平均价格为72美元,而仿制处方药的平均价格为17美元.     

浅析药品专利链接制度的基本构成——以美国为例

由于制药行业对专利保护具有高度依赖性,而新药研发的高成本又与公众的用药需求相冲突,为解决这个问题,药品专利链接制度应运而生。美国Hatch-Waxman法案作为该制度的起源,对美国乃至全世界的制药行业均具有深远的影响,其通过仿制药简化申请、专利声明、专利挑战等制度保障了仿制药产业的发展,同时也通过专利延长和试验数据保护等方式支持了原研药的创新。     

2014年5月CDE受理药品评介

2014年5月CDE共受理药品申请802件,比4月份增加32件。其中,新药申请213件,仿制申请181件,进口申请52件。     

Projecting future drug expenditures--1992.

The effects of inflation, generic competition, and the introduction of new drug entities on future drug expenditures are discussed. The impact of inflation can be predicted by analyzing trends in historical data and determining factors that may affect drug use. Useful sources include U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics Producer Price Index figures for pharmaceuticals, commercially available data on drug product pricing, and market basket indices compiled by the Health Care Financing Administration (HCFA) and the American Hospital Association. HCFA predicts that quarterly increases in pharmaceutical prices in 1992-93 will range from 6.4% to 8.1%. Pharmaceutical industry analysts predict overall annual inflation rates for pharmaceuticals in 1991-92 ranging from 8% to 10%. To evaluate generic competition, information on the expiration of patents and market exclusivity can be used. Decreases of 30-70% in the list price of a drug product can be expected after the introduction of a generic product, and the price usually stabilizes at approximately 50% of the list price of the innovator product at the time the first generic product was marketed. Predicting when new drug entities will be introduced is difficult; analysts say the usual time from filing of a new drug application to FDA approval is two years. The FDA says approval usually follows within a few weeks after an advisory panel's recommendation for approval, and marketing can be expected within a few months after final FDA approval. Assumptions about future drug expenditures should take into account historical and predicted rates of inflation, the status of generic competition for existing products, and the prospects for introduction of new drug entities.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)     

Examination of risk evaluation and mitigation strategies and drug safety in the US

BackgroundThe Food and Drug Administration Amendment Act of 2007 (FDAAA 2007) enabled the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to require risk evaluation and mitigation strategies (REMS) for a drug or biologic to ensure that its benefits outweigh the risks.ObjectiveThis study sought to evaluate REMS approved and released by the FDA since the program inception in 2008, to assess the characteristics of REMS approved and to calculate the time lag between FDA drug application approval and REMS approval.MethodsData were derived from Approved Drug Products with Therapeutic Equivalence Evaluations, Approved REMS and Drugs@FDA. Data included generic availability, application type and approval date, therapeutic class and FDA review class, orphan designation, priority review and market status.ResultsThe FDA approved REMS for 259 marketing applications (217 new drug applications -NDAs, 10 abbreviated NDAs, and 32 biologic license applications) in the study period. The FDA granted orphan designation to 11.4% of active ingredients with REMS and priority review to 38.4% of the NDAs with REMS. The largest number of REMS approvals was for nervous system products (31.8% of total approved REMS) and antineoplastic and immunomodulating agents (15.3%).ConclusionsThe FDA approved REMS for one in three biologics and one in thirteen chemical entities available in the market. A pharmaceutical product can be in the market for an average of 14 years before the FDA identifies and evaluates the risk problems that warrant the approval of a REMS.     

Product selection, bioequivalence, and therapeutic equivalence: the generic drug market

Pharmacists are continually faced with drug product selection decisions. When is a generic drug product equivalent to the innovator product and, thus, a suitable candidate for generic substitution? The FDA policy has been that only drug products that are therapeutic equivalents are candidates for product selection decisions. This paper outlines the regulatory and scientific framework for the FDA's policies and requirements for generic drug products. The history and current status of the Drug Efficacy Study Implementation (DESI) project is described. Originally begun in 1966 as a review of about 3,400 drug products, the review in mid-1983 is more than 90% complete, but its impact has already affected more than 7,000 marketed drug products. The therapeutic equivalence policy and the manner in which decisions on therapeutic equivalence are communicated are reviewed. Regulatory policies for the approval of generic drug products are reviewed and specific litigation challenging the rights of generic drug manufacturers to produce generic "look-alikes" and challenging the FDA's policy that a generic drug product is a new drug requiring an approved New Drug Application for marketing is discussed. The conclusion reached is that the evaluation of regulatory requirements and science is leading to a point where all generic drug products will be known to be safe, effective and therapeutically equivalent, and pharmacists can be optimistic about the quality of products in the generic drug market.     

Meta-analysis for bioequivalence review

The problem of drug interchangeability among a brand-name drug and its generic copies is considered. Under current Food and Drug Administration (FDA) regulation, a patient may switch from the brand-name drug to a generic drug if the generic drug is shown to be bioequivalent to the brand-name drug based on bioequivalence testing. After the patent of a brand-name drug is expired, usually there will be a number of generic copies available on the market. The FDA does not indicate that a patient may switch from a generic to another even though both of the generic drugs are bioequivalent to the brand-name drug. As a result, drug interchangeability among the brand-name and its generic copies is a safety concern. In this paper, we propose to perform a meta-analysis for an overview of bioequivalence. The proposed meta-analysis provides an assessment of bioequivalence among generic copies of a brand-name that can be used as a tool to monitor the performance of the approved generic copies of the brand-name drug. In addition, it provides more accurate estimates of inter- and intrasubject variabilities of the drug product.     

美国橙皮书制度给我国发展通用名药的启示

未来5年内全球有超过70个畅销的专利药陆续到期,这将为通用名药市场带来巨大的商机。橙皮书(Orange Book)是美国FDA为适应《Hatch-Waxman法案》而设立的新药专利链接制度。简要介绍橙皮书制度及相关通用名药的简化新药申请(abbreviated new drug application,ANDA)制度,并从严格制定认证标准、寻求与品牌药合作"授权仿制药"、突破专利封锁等方面分析橙皮书制度对我国制药企业发展通用名药市场的启示。     

Common Deficiencies with Bioequivalence Submissions in Abbreviated New Drug Applications Assessed by FDA

Purpose

A generic product must meet the standards established by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to be approved for marketing in the USA. FDA approves a generic product for marketing if it is proved to be therapeutically equivalent to the reference product. Bioequivalence (BE) between a proposed generic product and its corresponding reference product is one of the major components of therapeutic equivalence. These approvals may be delayed if the BE portion of the submission is determined to be deficient. Many of these BE deficiencies recur commonly and can be avoided.

Method

We conducted a survey of the BE submissions to abbreviated new drug applications (ANDAs) over years 2001 to 2008 to identify the most commonly occurring BE deficiencies.

Results

Recurring deficiencies are found in a majority of the ANDAs reviewed by FDA’s Division of Bioequivalence. The most common deficiencies were the two deficiencies related to dissolution (method and specifications) found in 23.3% of the applications and analytical method validation and/or report found in 16.5% of the applications. The approval of generic drugs would be greatly accelerated if these deficiencies could be avoided.KEY WORDS: ANDA, bioequivalence, common deficiency, FDA     

Bioequivalence of generic thioridazine drug products--the FDA viewpoint

The phenothiazines are among the most widely used drugs to treat symptoms commonly associated with acute and chronic psychoses. One of the commonly prescribed compounds within this class of drugs is thioridazine, available both as a generic product as well as the innovator product, Mellaril. Each of these products is coded as bioequivalent and consequently therapeutically equivalent by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). A recent issue of this journal contained an article that raised a number of questions concerning the bioequivalence of the generic versions of thioridazine that have been approved by the FDA. Their article was based in part on information obtained from the FDA as well as information supplied to the authors by Sandoz, Inc., the manufacturer of the original thioridazine drug product Mellaril. The FDA has reviewed its original decision of bioequivalence. Based on this reassessment, the FDA strongly rejects the assertion by the authors that several of the approved generic thioridazine products are not bioequivalent. The rationale behind the FDA decisions and the FDA's viewpoint on the bioequivalence of generic thioridazine drug products is discussed in detail.     

Some thoughts on drug interchangeability

Abstract

Current regulation for generic approval is based on the assessment of average bioequivalence. As indicated by the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA), an approved generic drug can be used as a substitute for the innovative drug. FDA does not indicate that two generic copies of the same innovative drug can be used interchangeably even though they are bioequivalent to the same brand-name drug. In practice, bioequivalence between generic copies of an innovative drug is not required. However, as more generic drug products become available, it is a concern whether the approved generic drug products have the same quality and therapeutic effect as the brand-name drug product and whether they can be used safely and interchangeably. In this article, several criteria including a newly proposed criterion for assessing drug interchangeability are studied. In addition, comments on possible study designs and power calculation for sample size under a specific design are also discussed.