Abstract
“Rules” on how to prepare and present preclinical data in regulatory submissions are well established. Issues/delays in achieving a product license for a new drug can be avoided through a knowledge of these rules and good communication with regulatory agencies. In addition, preclinical evaluation of data needs to be written in a well-balanced, scientific manner to highlight the safety profile of the new drug in terms of human use and any deficiencies in the testing program. However, despite available help, preclinical documentation within submissions can be deficient in a number of ways. This paper highlights necessary regulatory requirements within the preclinical summaries of dossiers and comments on areas of neglect along with new challenges for the preclinical expert as well as exploring ways of avoiding adverse regulatory agency comments.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Notice to applicants Volume 2B—medicinal products for human use. Presentation and content of the dossier. In The rules governing medicinal products in the European Union. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities; 1998.
Guidelines Volume 3B—medicinal products for human use. Safety, environment and information. In The rules governing medicinal products in the European Union. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities; 1998.
Center for Drug Evaluation and Research. Guidance for industry. Guidelines for the format and content of the nonclinical pharmacology/toxicology section of an application. Rockville, MD: US Food and Drug Administration; 1987.
Japanese Technical Requirements for New Drug Registration. Tokyo: Yakuji Nippon Ltd; 1997.
European Medicines Evaluation Agency. CPMP/ ICH/2887/99—Topic M4: Common Technical Document for the Registration of Pharmaceuticals for Human Use. London, UK: European Medicines Evaluation Agency; 1999.
Guarino RA, ed. New Drug Approval Process. New York, NY. Marcel Dekker, Inc.; 1993.
Dayan AD. Integrating safety data: the expert report. Toxicol Pathol. 1994;22(2):206–212.
Seiler JP. Facets of user-friendliness: from format to content of regulatory submissions. Drug Inf J. 1999;33:41–48.
Nohynek GJ, ed. Presenting Toxicology Results. How to Evaluate Data and Write Reports. London, UK: Taylor & Francis; 1996.
European Medicines Evaluation Agency. CPMP/ ICH/539/00-Note for Guidance on Safety Pharmacology Studies for Human Pharmaceuticals. London, UK: European Medicines Evaluation Agency; 2000.
European Medicines Evaluation Agency. CPMP/986/96—Points to Consider. The Assessment of the Potential for QT Interval Prolongation by Non-Cardiovascular Medicinal Products. London, UK: Euro-pean Medicines Evaluation Agency; 1996.
Crumb W, Cavero I. QT interval prolongation by non-cardiovascular drugs: issues and solutions for novel drug development. Pharmaceutical Sci Tech Today. 1999;7(2):270–280.
Champeroux P, Martel E, Vannier C, Blanc V, Leguennec JY, Fowler J, Richard S. The preclinical assessment of the risk for QT interval prolongation. Therapie. 2000;55(1):101–109.
DeGeorge JJ, Meyers LL, Takahashi M, Contrera JF. The duration of non-rodent toxicity studies for pharmaceuticals. The duration of non-rodent toxicity studies for pharmaceuticals. 1999;49(2): 143–155.
Contrera JF, Jacobs AC, DeGeorge JJ. Carcinogenicity testing and the evaluation of regulatory requirements for pharmaceuticals. Carcinogenicity testing and the evaluation of regulatory requirements for pharmaceuticals. 1997;25(2):130–145.
Van Oosterhout JP, Van der Laan JW, De Waal EJ, Olejniczak K, Hilgenfeld M, Schmidt V, Bass R. The utility of two rodent species in carcinogenic risk assessment of pharmaceuticals in Europe. The utility of two rodent species in carcinogenic risk assessment of pharmaceuticals in Europe. 1997;25(1):6–17.
Griffiths SA. Pharmaceutical company strategies for designing nonclinical safety programs for products of biotechnology. Pharmaceutical company strategies for designing nonclinical safety programs for products of biotechnology. 1999;33:933–938.
Serabian MA, Pilaro AM. Safety assessment of biotechnology-derived pharmaceuticals: ICH and beyond. Safety assessment of biotechnology-derived pharmaceuticals: ICH and beyond. 1999;27(1):27–31.
Dempster AM. Nonclinical safety evaluation of bio-technologically derived pharmaceuticals. Nonclinical safety evaluation of bio-technologically derived pharmaceuticals. 2000;5:221–258.
US Food and Drug Administration, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research. Homepage: http://www.fda.gov/cder/guidance.
US Food and Drug Administration, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research. Homepage: http://www.fda.gov/cder/pediatric/faqs.htm.
European Medicines Evaluation Agency. Homepage: http://www.eudra.org/humandocs.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Baldrick, P. Preclinical Considerations For Regulatory Submissions. Ther Innov Regul Sci 35, 99–105 (2001). https://doi.org/10.1177/009286150103500111
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/009286150103500111