Advertisement

Pharmaceutical Medicine

, Volume 27, Issue 6, pp 345–351 | Cite as

The Emergence of Regulatory Science in Pharmaceutical Medicine

  • Torbjörn CallréusEmail author
  • Christian K. Schneider
Leading Article

Abstract

Against a backdrop of increasing costs and poor productivity, the concept of ‘regulatory science’ has sometimes been invoked in recent years in discussions regarding regulation of pharmaceuticals. There is not one generally accepted definition of regulatory science; however, there are several proposed definitions centered on a common theme: the ‘brand of science’ (knowledge, tools, concepts, etc.) that underpins and evolves regulatory decision making. This article provides a short review of the origins and features of regulatory science in addition to an exploration of its current and potential future role in pharmaceutical medicine. Moreover, the article discusses how regulatory science differs from traditional academic science and how it is related to the concept of regulatory affairs. It is concluded that the emerging field of regulatory science is likely to influence the future shaping and implementation of laws and regulations.

Keywords

Regulatory Science Pharmaceutical Medicine H1N1 Vaccine Regulatory Principle Regulatory Affair 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Notes

Acknowledgments

Neither Dr Callréus nor Dr Schneider has any relevant conflicts of interest. No sources of funding were used to prepare this article. The views expressed in this article are the personal views of the authors and may not be understood or quoted as being made on behalf of or reflecting the position of the European Medicines Agency or one of its committees or working parties.

References

  1. 1.
    Mullard A. Mediator scandal rocks French medical community. Lancet. 2011;377(9769):890–2.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Allison M. Reinventing clinical trials. Nat Biotechnol. 2012;30(1):41–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Scannell JW, Blanckley A, Boldon H, Warrington B. Diagnosing the decline in pharmaceutical R&D efficiency. Nat Rev Drug Discov. 2012;11(3):191–200.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Institute of Medicine. Strengthening a workforce for innovative regulatory science in therapeutics development: workshop summary. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press; 2012.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Lumpkin MM, Eichler HG, Breckenridge A, Hamburg MA, Lonngren T, Woods K. Advancing the science of medicines regulation: the role of the 21st-century medicines regulator. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2012;92(4):486–93.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Tominaga T, Asahina Y, Uyama Y, Kondo T. Regulatory science as a bridge between science and society. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2011;90(1):29–31.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Bauschke R. Defining regulation: review of previous theory. The effectiveness of European regulatory governance: the case of pharmaceutical regulation. Heidelberg: Ruprecht-Karls-Universität Heidelberg; 2010. p. 58–60.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Francis JG. Introduction. The politics of regulation: a comparative perspective. Oxford: Blackwell; 1993. p. 1–5.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Moghissi A. Institute for regulatory science: what is regulatory science? [online]. http://www.nars.org/whatis.html. Accessed 03 Sept 2013.
  10. 10.
    Kurihara C, Saio T. What is regulatory science? Concept and history in the United States and Japan: interview with Professor Sheila Jasanoff. Clin Eval. 2011;39(1):1–16.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Jasanoff S. The fifth branch: science advisers as policymakers. Cambridge: Harvard University Press; 1990.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Callreus T. The precautionary principle and pharmaceutical risk management. Drug Saf. 2005;28(6):465–71.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Merriam-Webster Dictionary. Definition of science (online). http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/science. Accessed 20 Nov 2013.
  14. 14.
    The Centre for Science and Technology Policy Research UoC. Regulatory vs. Academic Science [online]. http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/klamathbasin/science_policy/regulatory_vs_academic.html. Accessed 03 Sept 2013.
  15. 15.
    Irwin A, Rothstein H, Yearley S, McCarthy E. Regulatory science: towards a sociological framework. Futures. 1997;29(1):17–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Rägo L, Santoso B. Drug regulation: history, present and future. In: van Boxtel CJ, Santoso B, Edwards IR, editors. Drug benefits and risks: international textbook of clinical pharmacology. 2nd ed. Amsterdam/Uppsala: IOS Press/Uppsala Monitoring Centre; 2008. p. 65–77.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Avorn J. Two centuries of assessing drug risks. N Engl J Med. 2012;367(3):193–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Hamburg MA. Shattuck lecture. Innovation, regulation, and the FDA. N Engl J Med. 2010;363(23):2228–32.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    European Medicines Agency. Regulatory science: are regulators leaders or followers? [online]. http://www.ema.europa.eu/ema/index.jspcurl=pages/news_and_events/events/2011/01/event_detail_000394.jsp&mid=WC0b01ac058004d5c3. Accessed 03 Sept 2013.
  20. 20.
    Tse MT. Regulatory watch: crossing the regulatory finish line. Nat Rev Drug Discov. 2012;11(7):509.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    European Medicines Agency. Draft guideline on similar biological medicinal products CHMP/437/04 Rev 1. [online]. 2013. http://www.ema.europa.eu/docs/en_GB/document_library/Scientific_guideline/2013/05/WC500142978.pdf. Accessed 04 Sept 2013.
  22. 22.
    European Medicines Agency. Annex to guideline on similar biological medicinal products containing biotechnology-derived proteins as active substance: non-clinical and clinical issues - Guidance on similar medicinal products containing recombinant human insulin EMEA/CHMP/BMWP/32775/2005 [online]. 2006. http://www.ema.europa.eu/docs/en_GB/document_library/Scientific_guideline/2009/09/WC500003957.pdf. Accessed 04 Sept 2013.
  23. 23.
    European Medicines Agency. Guideline on Similar biological medicinal products containing low-molecular-weight heparins EMEA/CHMP/BMWP/118264/2007 [online]. 2009. http://www.ema.europa.eu/docs/en_GB/document_library/Scientific_guideline/2009/09/WC500003927.pdf. Accessed 04 Sept 2013.
  24. 24.
    European Medicines Agency. Revision of the guideline on non-clinical and clinical development of similar biological medicinal products containing recombinant human insulin and insulin analogues EMEA/CHMP/BMWP/32775/2005_Rev. 1 [online]. 2012. http://www.ema.europa.eu/docs/en_GB/document_library/Scientific_guideline/2012/12/WC500136392.pdf. Accessed 04 Sept 2013.
  25. 25.
    European Medicines Agency. Non-clinical and clinical development of similar biological medicinal products containing low-molecular-weight heparins EMEA/CHMP/BMWP/118264/2007 Rev. 1 [online]. 2013. http://www.ema.europa.eu/docs/en_GB/document_library/Scientific_guideline/2013/01/WC500138309.pdf. Accessed 04 Sept 2013.
  26. 26.
    Turner JR. Editor’s commentary: assessing worst-case scenarios in regulatory science. Drug Inf J. 2012;46(3):283–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Zineh I, Woodcock J. Clinical pharmacology and the catalysis of regulatory science: opportunities for the advancement of drug development and evaluation. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2013;93(6):515–25.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Liberti L, McAuslane JN, Walker S. Standardizing the benefit-risk assessment of new medicines. Pharm Med. 2011;25(3):139–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Staffa JA, Dal Pan GJ. Regulatory innovation in postmarketing risk assessment and management. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2012;91(3):555–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Verma A, Torun P, Harris E, Edwards R, Gemmell I, Harrison RA, et al. Population impact analysis: a framework for assessing the population impact of a risk or intervention. J Public Health (Oxf). 2012;34(1):83–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Forda SR, Bergstrom R, Chlebus M, Barker R, Andersen PH. Priorities for improving drug research, development and regulation. Nat Rev Drug Discov. 2013;12(4):247–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
  33. 33.
    Eichler HG, Pignatti F, Flamion B, Leufkens H, Breckenridge A. Balancing early market access to new drugs with the need for benefit/risk data: a mounting dilemma. Nat Rev Drug Discov. 2008;7(10):818–26.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Eichler HG, Abadie E, Raine JM, Salmonson T. Safe drugs and the cost of good intentions. N Engl J Med. 2009;360(14):1378–80.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Dolgin E. Big pharma moves from ‘blockbusters’ to ‘niche busters’. Nat Med. 2010;16(8):837.Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Eichler HG, Bloechl-Daum B, Abadie E, Barnett D, Konig F, Pearson S. Relative efficacy of drugs: an emerging issue between regulatory agencies and third-party payers. Nat Rev Drug Discov. 2010;9(4):277–91.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Woodcock J. Evidence vs. access: can twenty-first-century drug regulation refine the tradeoffs? Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2012;91(3):378–80.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Eichler HG, Oye K, Baird LG, Abadie E, Brown J, Drum CL, et al. Adaptive licensing: taking the next step in the evolution of drug approval. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2012;91(3):426–37.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Phillips LD, Fasolo B, Zafiropoulous N, Eichler HG, Ehmann F, Jekerle V, et al. Modelling the risk-benefit impact of H1N1 influenza vaccines. Eur J Public Health. 2013;23(4):674–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Barratt RA, Bowens SL, McCune SK, Johannessen JN, Buckman SY. The critical path initiative: leveraging collaborations to enhance regulatory science. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2012;91(3):380–3.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Goldman M. Reflections on the innovative medicines initiative. Nat Rev Drug Discov. 2011;10(5):321–2.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Food and Drug Administration. Advancing regulatory science at FDA [online]. http://www.fda.gov/downloads/ScienceResearch/SpecialTopics/RegulatoryScience/UCM268225.pdf. Accessed 04 Sept 2013.
  43. 43.
    European Medicines Agency. Road map to 2015 [online]. http://www.ema.europa.eu/docs/en_GB/document_library/Report/2011/01/WC500101373.pdf. Accessed 04 Sept 2013.
  44. 44.
    Dance A. Regulatory science: researchers in the pipeline. Nature. 2013;496(7445):387–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Ehmann F, Papaluca AM, Salmonson T, Posch M, Vamvakas S, Hemmings R, et al. Gatekeepers and enablers: how drug regulators respond to a challenging and changing environment by moving toward a proactive attitude. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2013;93(5):425–32.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    FitzGerald GA. Regulatory science: what it is and why we need it. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2011;89(2):291–4.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Torbjörn Callréus
    • 1
    Email author
  • Christian K. Schneider
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
  1. 1.Danish Health and Medicines AuthorityCopenhagenDenmark
  2. 2.Twincore Centre for Experimental and Clinical Infection ResearchHannoverGermany
  3. 3.Committee for Advanced Therapy Medicinal Products (CAT), European Medicines Agency (EMA)LondonUK

Personalised recommendations