• Korean System Dynamics Review
• /
• v.13 no.4
• /
• pp.57-80
• /
• 2012

This research studies effect of FDA regulations in pharmaceutical industry on new drug development. System dynamics is implemented to demonstrate dynamic relationship between FDA regulations and R&D costs, firm's profits, sales. This research is focused on clinical trials of new medical entity process 50~60% portion of total development cost. Simulation results say that firm's profit is more sensitive to increasing the regulation than alleviating the regulation and effect of regulation policy make different result depending on the intensity of regulation and policy direction. Our simulation model provides the instrumental means for the policy makers and strategic decision in pharmaceutical industry.

• Proceedings of the PSK Conference
• /
• 2001.04a
• /
• pp.143.2-143.2
• /
• 2001

• Genomics & Informatics
• /
• v.12 no.4
• /
• pp.151-155
• /
• 2014

In November 2013, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) sent a warning letter to 23andMe, Inc. and ordered the company to discontinue marketing of the 23andMe Personal Genome Service (PGS) until it receives FDA marketing authorization for the device. The FDA considers the PGS as an unclassified medical device, which requires premarket approval or de novo classification. Opponents of the FDA's action expressed their concerns, saying that the FDA is overcautious and paternalistic, which violates consumers' rights and might stifle the consumer genomics field itself, and insisted that the agency should not restrict direct-to-consumer (DTC) genomic testing without empirical evidence of harm. Proponents support the agency's action as protection of consumers from potentially invalid and almost useless information. This action was also significant, since it reflected the FDA's attitude towards medical application of next-generation sequencing techniques. In this review, we followed up on the FDA-23andMe incident and evaluated the problems and prospects for DTC genetic testing.

• The Korean Society of Law and Medicine
• /
• v.15 no.2
• /
• pp.63-89
• /
• 2014

In 1976, the Dalkon Shield-intrauterine device injured several thousand women in U.S.A. which caused the changes of medical deivce regulation. The Medical Device Regulation Act or Medical Device Amendments of 1976 (MDA) was introduce. As part of the process of regulating medical devices, the MDA divides medical devices into three categories. The class II, and III devices which have moderate harm or more can use the section 510 (k), premarket notification process if the manufacturer can establish that its device is "substantially equivalent" to a device that was marketed before 1976. In 21 U.S.C. ${\S}$ 360k(a), MDA introduced a provision which expressly preempts competing state laws or regulations. After that, the judicial debates had began over the proper interpretation and application of Section 360(k) In February 2008, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Riegel v. Medtronic that manufacturer approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA)'s pre-market approval process are preempted from liability, even when the devices have defective design or lack of labeling. But the Supreme Court ruled in Medtronic Inc. v. Lora Lohr that the manufactures which use the section 510 (k) process cannot be preempted and in Bausch v. Stryker Corp. that manufactures which violated the CGMP standard are also liable to the damage of patient at the state courts. In 2009, the Supreme Court ruled in Wyeth v. Levine that patients harmed by prescription drugs can claim damages in state courts. This may cause a double standard between prescription drugs and medical devices. FDA Preemption is the legal theory in the United States that exempts product manufacturers from tort claims regarding Food and Drug Administration approved products. FDA Preemption has been a highly contentious issue. In general, consumer groups are against it while the FDA and pharmaceutical manufacturers are in favor of it. This issues also influences the theory of product liability of U.S.A. Complete immunity preemption is an issue need to be more declared.

• Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging
• /
• v.41 no.6
• /
• pp.525-529
• /
• 2007

Regulation for the radiopharmaceuticals should be reasonably different from that of other drugs. Radiopharmaceuticals are always used by compounding based on the doctor's order, have short half life and very low administration dose. Its pharmacological effect is not from its chemical effect but from radiation. The background for exploratory IND (Investigational New Drug) explained by the FDA was to reduce the time and resources expended on candidate products that are unlikely to suceed, new tools are needed to distinguish earlier in the process those candidates that hold promise from those that do not. In this review, basic concept for exploratory IND and RDRC guideline is summarized and various suggestions for improving and expediting procedure for new radiopharmaceutical development would be described.

• YAKHAK HOEJI
• /
• v.59 no.1
• /
• pp.40-46
• /
• 2015

The term "GMP" firstly came on the 1962 amendment of the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic (FD&C) Act and the US FDA established and officially announced the Good Manufacturing Practice Regulation for the first time in the world in 1963. In 1969, the World Health Organization published the GMP regulation and recommended that member states adopt the GMP regulation and implement the "GMP Certification Scheme" for international commerce of finished pharmaceutical products. As a result, GMP requirements have become important ones that have to be complied with in the manufacture of pharmaceutical products. The Korean GMP regulation was announced as the official notification by the Ministry of Health and Social Affairs in 1977. The KGMP regulation was voluntarily adopted by pharmaceutical companies at the early stage, but it had become mandatory. In addition, various kinds of GMP regulations have been established to cover active pharmaceutical ingredients, biological products and others, in addition to finished pharmaceutical products. Taking account of technological development and changes in the pharmaceutical environments, the KGMP regulation was fully amended and harmonized with GMP requirements of developed countries. In this way, the KGMP has developed to keep up with international trends and standards, leading to accession to the Pharmaceutical Inspection Cooperation Scheme (PIC/S).

• Korean Journal of Clinical Pharmacy
• /
• v.34 no.1
• /
• pp.39-61
• /
• 2024

Background: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the European Medicines Agency (EMA), and the Ministry of Food and Drug Safety (MFDS) have been implementing the expedited programs that promote the innovative approval of new medications to be used for serious diseases. The authors comprehensively investigated, analyzed, and compared the regulations and guidelines associated with the expedited programs. Methods: The expedited programs for innovative drug development and approval were searched from the homepages of FDA, EMA and MFDS. The detailed information on the regulations and guidelines associated with the programs was comprehensively extracted from various electronic repositories of each regulatory authority. The information on each program was analyzed, categorized, and compared from the points of benefits, applicability with scientific rationale, application procedure, and maintenance. Results: FDA's programs include Fast Track Designation, Breakthrough Therapy Designation, Priority Review Designation, and Accelerated Approval. EMA's regulation implements PRIority MEdicines (PRIME), Accelerated Assessment, Marketing Authorization under Exceptional Circumstances (MAEC), and Conditional Marketing Authorization (CMA). MFDS has a single Expedited Program. These programs are broadly categorized into those that 1) facilitate early and proactive communication with regulatory authorities, 2) shorten the review time after submitting a marketing application, and 3) temporarily approve a marketing authorization under certain conditions. Conclusion: Each expedited program requires a different level and amount of safety and efficacy evidence to be submitted to each regulatory authority. This article will likely provide the comprehensive information on which program provides scientific and regulatory advantages to be taken for innovative medication development.

• The Korean Society of Law and Medicine
• /
• v.21 no.2
• /
• pp.209-244
• /
• 2020

TMS and tDCS are non-invasive devices that treat the diseases of patients or individual users, and manage or improve their health by applying stimulation to a brain through magnetism and electricity. The effect and safety of these devices have proved to be valid in several diseases, but research in this area is still much going on. Despite increasing cases of their application, legislations directly regulating TMS and tDCS are hard to find. Legal regulation regarding TMS and tDCS in the United States, Germany and Japan reveals that while TMS has been approved as a medical device with a moderate risk, tDCS has not yet earned approval as a medical device. However, the recent FDA guidance, European MDR changes, recalls in the US, and relevant legal provisions of Germany and Japan, as well as recommendations from expert groups all show signs of tDCS growing closer to getting approved as a medical device. Of course, safety and efficacy of tDCS can still be regulated as a general product instead of as a medical device. Considering multiple potential impacts on a human brain, however, the need for independent regulation is urgent. South Korea also lacks legal provisions explicitly regulating TMS and tDCS, but they fall into the category of the grade 3 medical devices according to the notifications of the Korean Ministry of Food and Drug Safety. And safety and efficacy of TMS are to be evaluated in compliance with the US FDA guidance. But no specific guidelines exist for tDCS yet. Given that tDCS devices are used in some hospitals in reality, and also at home by individual buyers, such a regulatory gap must quickly be addressed. In a longer term, legal system needs to be in place capable of independently regulating non-invasive brain stimulating devices.

• Journal of the Korean Dietetic Association
• /
• v.4 no.2
• /
• pp.160-167
• /
• 1998

Current status of nutrient fortification in processed food in Korea were presented by analyzing the information shown on food labels. The obtained information was assessed by the regulations on food fortification in both Korea and other countries including Codex. The most current regulations were gathered from internet. The results are summarized as follows. 1. Major nutrients fortified were calcium, Vit C, Vit B complex, iron and fiber. The forfified foods were not limitted to certain food group with more frequent fortification in snackfoods, cereal, ramyun, retort pouch foods, milk, and youguart. The descriptive terms of nutrition label for the fortification were various including high, supplemented, added, source, fortified, and abundance though the difference among these terms were not distinct. 2. Current regulation on nutrition label requires to give the content of the fortified nutrient and % RDA. However not all of food items carry above information. Also some ingredients such as chitosan, DHA, taurine, $\omega$-3 fatty acid, chondrichin, bifidus were supplemented mainly to the snack foods which FDA(USA) does not allow to be fortified. 3. The nutrient most frequently fortified was calcium and general practice of fortification appears to follow the regulation in Korea. Presently the regulation itself is not well described, this nutient fortification can cause toxic effect. Since calcium was supplemented to wide range of food group consumers who are not conscious of the safe upper limit may intake the fortified food up to the level of 2g/day. 4. For the effective fortification in Korea, the regulation on fortification should be reformed in accordance with the international guideline Codex and the regulations in other countries especially in America and Japan.

• Toxicological Research
• /
• v.27 no.3
• /
• pp.133-135
• /
• 2011

The FDA guidance focuses on the use of the NOAEL to establish the maximum recommended starting dose. The majority of NOAEL has been described inaccurately or incompletely in final reports for 90-days repeated dose toxicity test based on GLP (good laboratory practice) regulation. This is the most serious one of reasons for why most pharmaceutical companies targeting global markets have disregarded the final report produced from GLP facilities in Korea. The problems in deciding NOAEL reflected in the final reports are mainly due to the followings; 1) Inaccurate description or use of NOEL, NOAEL and LOAEL, 2) Insufficient and inappropriate interpretations in findings from toxicity test. This paper is intended to provide the insight into distinguishing NOAEL from NOEL and LOAEL, and into classifying findings from toxicity test. Here, the three step method is newly suggested by applying the weight-based classification to the NOEL, NOAEL and LOAEL based on the findings.