The Regulatory Environment for the New Millennium

Abstract

Changes in the global regulatory environment for the pharmaceutical and medical device industries are having a significant impact on how new products are developed and marketed. Throughout the 1990s, major efforts in global harmonization of regulatory requirements were made by several organizations. In the pharmaceutical industry, the many new guidelines for quality, safety, and efficacy are being implemented in Europe, Japan, and the United States, while work continues to develop the Common Technical Document for the format and content of new market applications. In the medical device industry, the implementation of the European CE Mark and the work of the Global Harmonization Task Force is revolutionizing the regulatory environment. These global efforts along with the national movements to reorganize local regulatory environments in Europe and the United States are discussed.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

References

  1. 1.

    Anon. A Brief Guide to the EC Rules Governing Medicines. 5th Ed. Brussels, Belgium: European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industries’ Associations; April 1994.

    Google Scholar 

  2. 2.

    Sauer F. A new and fast drug approval system in Europe. Drug Inf J. 1997;31:1–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. 3.

    Jones K. Wider perspectives of European medicines control. Drug Inf J. 1996;30:1–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. 4.

    FDA. Reinventing Regulation of Drugs and Medical Devices. April 1995. (Internet: http://www.fda.gov).

    Google Scholar 

  5. 5.

    FDA Backgrounder: Reinventing Drug and Medical Device Regulation. 5/5/96. (Internet: http://www.f-da.gov).

  6. 6.

    Anon. Electronic Records; Electronic Signatures, Final Rule. Electronic Submissions; Establishment of Public Docket, Notice. Fed Reg. 3/20/97. 62 (54):13430–13466.

  7. 7.

    FDA. Guidance to Industry. Providing Clinical Evidence of Effectiveness for Human Drugs and Biological Products. May 1998.

    Google Scholar 

  8. 8.

    FDA, Center for Drug Research and Evaluation. Report to Industry 1996. 2/10/97.

    Google Scholar 

  9. 9.

    Anon. Center for Drug Evaluation and Research 1998 Report to the Nation. Improving Public Health Through Human Drugs, (www.fda.gov).

  10. 10.

    FDA Talk Paper. FDA’s Negotiations with EU. 6/16/97. (Internet: http://www.fda.gov).

  11. 11.

    Segal DE, Rubin PD. Mutual recognition agreement between the United States and European Union signals new era of device and drug regulation. RA Focus. 1997;2 (9):20–21.

    Google Scholar 

  12. 12.

    US Congress, Senate bill S.830: Food and Drug Administration Modernization and Accountability Act of 1997.

  13. 13.

    Anon. Guidance Agenda: Guidance CDER is Planning to Develop. 10/12/99 (www.fda.gov).

  14. 14.

    Harman R. ICH 4—The End of the Beginning. Reg Aff J. 1997;8:713–714.

    Google Scholar 

  15. 15.

    Anon. The ICH Process for Harmonisation of Guidelines. Geneva, Switzerland: IFPMA; 1997. (Internet: http://www.ifpma.org).

    Google Scholar 

  16. 16.

    Miller D. International Conference on Harmonization: The End or Just the Beginning. RA Focus. 1997;2(3):6–9.

    Google Scholar 

  17. 17.

    Anon. ICH on Target for the New Millenium, Press Release, Washington, D.C.: IFPMA; 10/8/99. (www.ifpma.org.ich7).

  18. 18.

    De Cremiers F. ICH M4/The Common Technical Document (CTD): Comparison of clinical documents and summaries of assessment practices in the United States, Europe and Japan. Drug Inf J. 1999;33:601–614.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. 19.

    Möller H. A Common Technical Document of quality: A nightmare or reality? RA Focus. 1997;2(3):10–11.

    Google Scholar 

  20. 20.

    Council of European Communities, Medical Device Directive. 93/42/EEC. Brussels, Belgium: European Community; June 1993.

    Google Scholar 

  21. 21.

    Verdonck P, Ed. The Medical Device Directives. Passport to the Future. Brussels, Belgium: Baxter World Trade; 1995, pp. 14.

    Google Scholar 

  22. 22.

    Morton M. Canadian medical device proposal includes new requirements for premarket notification. RA Focus. 1996;1(11):10–11.

    Google Scholar 

  23. 23.

    Burlington DB. New Directions in Medical Device Regulation. An FDA Progress Report. FDA, Center for Device Evaluation and Radiological Health, Rockville, MD, September 8, 1997. (Internet http://www.fda.gov).

    Google Scholar 

  24. 24.

    Anon. Office of Drug Evaluation Annual Report, Fiscal Year 1998. (www.fda.gov).

  25. 25.

    Sawyer D. Do it by design. An Introduction to Human Factors in Medical Devices. FDA Guidance. Rockville, MD: CDRH; December 1996.

    Google Scholar 

  26. 26.

    Freedman DP, Weinberg GM. Handbook of Walkthroughs, Inspections, and Technical Reviews. 3rd Ed., New York, NY: Dorset House; 1990, p 12.

    Google Scholar 

  27. 27.

    Kahan JS. FDA’s revised GMP regulations. The road to global improvement? Med Device Diag Indust. 1994;16(5):128–132.

    Google Scholar 

  28. 28.

    Riley WJ, Densford III, JW. Processes, techniques and tools: The how of a successful design control system. Med Device Diag Indust. 1997;19(10):74–80.

    Google Scholar 

  29. 29.

    FDA. Design Control Guidance for Medical Device Manufacturers. Rockville, MD: FDA, CDRH; 3/1997.

    Google Scholar 

  30. 30.

    FDA. Medical Device Quality System Manual. A Small Entity Compliance Guide. Rockville, MD: FDA, CDRH: December 1996.

    Google Scholar 

  31. 31.

    The Quality System Compendium. Arlington, VA: Association for the Advancement of Medical Instrumentation; 1996.

  32. 32.

    Dickinson JG. In its bold new course, FDA needs industry help. Med Device Diag Indust. 1997;19(6):52–55.

    Google Scholar 

  33. 33.

    FDA. A New 5I0(k) Paradigm: Alternative Approaches to Demonstrating Substantial Equivalence in Premarket Notifications. Rockville, MD: FDA, CDRH; 3/98.

  34. 34.

    United States of America—European Community Mutual Recognition Agreement of Conformity Assessment. Sectorial Annex on Medical Devices. US/EC Final Draft; 6/5/97.

  35. 35.

    Wechsler J. Modernization in China and an MRA at home. Pharma Tech. 1997;9:16–28.

    Google Scholar 

  36. 36.

    Wechsler J. Electronic submissions and harmonized inspections. Appl Clin Trials. 1997;6(3):16–22.

    Google Scholar 

  37. 37.

    Jacobson ED. A Year in Review: An Annual Report by the GHTF Chair. June 1999. (www.ghtf.org).

    Google Scholar 

  38. 38.

    Colburn WA, McClurg JE, Cichoracki JR. The strategic role of outsourcing. CROs and the outsourcing phenomenon. Appl Clin Trials. 1997;6(9):68–75.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Steven F. Hoff PhD.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Hoff, S.F. The Regulatory Environment for the New Millennium. Ther Innov Regul Sci 34, 659–672 (2000). https://doi.org/10.1177/009286150003400302

Download citation

Key Words

  • Regulatory environment
  • Harmonization
  • Global
  • Drugs
  • Medical devices