India’s attempt to move towards a time-bound approach for the approval of clinical trial applications appears to have made some progress, but gaps and challenges on the ground, including those around the functioning of Subject Expert Committees (SECs), continue to set back these efforts, according to some senior industry experts
India’s Trial Approval Timelines Report Card – Some Red Lines?
India’s streamlined clinical trial approvals process appears to have made some gains, but top industry experts tell Pink Sheet how the non-standardized approach of Subject Expert Committees is a “major handicap” for applicants.
More from Clinical Trials
• By
The EU Clinical Trials Information System has achieved primary registry designation in the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform in a move that is expected to reduce regulatory burden for companies and help them lower compliance costs by aligning with publication requirements in medical journals.
• By
Newly published insights from a series of European Medicines Agency workshops can guide drug developers in designing development plans that meet the needs of both regulators and health technology assessment bodies.
• By
The new global GCP guideline, ICH E6(R3), enables researchers and clinical trial administrators to tailor their documentation processes, but also opens the door for more scrutiny during GCP inspections.
• By
The European Medicines Agency’s qualification of the AIM-NASH tool is said to signify a major advancement for clinical trials for metabolic dysfunction-associated steatohepatitis. The market size for MASH treatments is expected to grow substantially in the coming years.
More from R&D
• By
The European Medicines Agency’s qualification of the AIM-NASH tool is said to signify a major advancement for clinical trials for metabolic dysfunction-associated steatohepatitis. The market size for MASH treatments is expected to grow substantially in the coming years.
• By
As Indian CROs are bracing for new registration mandates, an expert panel at the IGBA’s 3rd Bioequivalence conference discusses the implications of non-compliance in bioequivalence studies.
• By
Experts working in the advanced therapy space say the US has less strict criteria for regulatory pathways for cell and gene therapies than the EU, particularly for products in early development.