UK’s International Recognition Procedure: EU Dossier Faster Than US Or Canada

Companies that use the European Medicines Agency as a reference regulator for the UK’s International Recognition Procedure can expect a faster approval than those that use other national regulators, such as those in the US and Canada, an MHRA spokesperson has said.

Tasneem Fatima Keshavji speaking at the RAPS Euro Convergence 2025 (Pink Sheet)
Key Takeaways
  • Companies using the UK’s International Recognition Procedure to apply for marketing authorizations can expect faster timelines when they use the EU as a reference regulator rather than the US or Canada.
  • This is because EU dossiers are more likely to be eligible for the type A pathway under the IRP, as the requirements for granting a marketing authorization are similar to those of the UK.
  • The UK MHRA is also looking at a new pilot project focused on the acceptance of approval decisions from the US Food and Drug Administration, which is set to be announced this year.

The UK’s International Recognition Procedure (IRP) allows the country’s drug regulator, the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency, to take account of approval decisions taken by seven other world regulators when assessing marketing authorization applications (MAAs).

However, companies that use the European Medicines Agency as a reference regulator can expect to gain approval for their medicine within 60 days, while those using other reference regulators might face a longer wait, according to Tasneem Fatima Keshavji, head of the IRP at the MHRA.

This is because “a lot of [MHRA] requirements are similar to the EMA,” Keshavji said during the RAPS Euro Convergence 2025 in Brussels, Belgium, on 14 May.

She explained that the MHRA would need to “factor in some additional time” if it was reviewing a dossier prepared for the US Food and Drug Administration or Health Canada, for which “there will be additional material which we haven’t seen before, or that the company would need to prepare specifically for that UK dossier.”

The IRP has two pathways, and it is the type A route that has a 60-day timetable with no clock stop. Meanwhile, the B route has a 110-day timetable with one clock stop at day 70, giving the applicant up to 60 days to respond to any issues identified.

While companies can apply for an approval through the type A pathway if their drug has been authorized in a reference regulator country within the last two years, the MHRA can revert an application to the type B pathway for a plethora of reasons, which are listed on the MHRA website. Examples include medicines with UK-specific risk management activities that must be addressed, or if pivotal clinical data for the drug has been generated from single-arm studies.

Keshavji suggested that applications made using reference regulators from outside the EU were more likely to result in questions that would require companies to use the type B pathway, as this gives them more time to respond to MHRA requests.

She noted that applicants can still be asked questions under the type A pathway, but they must be prepared to answer these in a timely fashion without the need for a clock-stop.

The IRP was launched in January 2024 as a replacement for the European Commission Decision Reliance Procedure (ECDRP), which allowed the MHRA to take account of EU marketing approval decisions and came to an end on 31 December 2023.

The seven reference regulators that are recognized by the UK under the IRP are from Australia, Canada, the EU, Japan, Switzerland, Singapore and the US.

MHRA Wants To Speed Up National Route

Companies that are not eligible to submit applications through either type A or type B of the IRP, or who do not want to, can use the MHRA national procedure instead.

The national procedure has a timeline of 210 days, although the agency is “looking to try and shorten those when possible,” Keshavji stated.

She said that while the IRP timelines in general are shorter than the MHRA’s national assessment route, the IRP is “dependent on approval by another reference regulator, so it doesn’t necessarily mean that patients in the UK will gain access to the medicine as quickly as possible.”

Keshavji urged companies to “come in for a pre-submission meeting” with the MHRA to discuss which route was best for their product.

FDA Pilot Incoming

Keshavji pointed out that the UK also uses other regulatory reliance initiatives, such as the FDA-led Project Orbis, and said the MHRA was aiming to look at more ways of collaborating internationally.

“Some initiatives that are currently ongoing are also looking at ‘how can we accept dossiers from around the world? How can we actually accept an FDA dossier in the UK?’,” she said, adding that there was a “pilot that’s going to be running for this year” focused on this topic.

While Keshavji could not provide further information on the pilot, she said the MHRA wanted to “make things easier” for industry and “get medicines for patients quicker.”

Project Orbis, launched in 2019, provides a framework for international regulators to evaluate cancer drug filings concurrently or near-concurrently with the US FDA. Project Orbis partners are Australia, Brazil, Canada, Israel, Singapore, Switzerland and the UK.

The MHRA also participates in the ACCESS Consortium, which is an international regulatory reliance initiative that also includes regulators from Australia, Canada, Singapore and Switzerland.

More from Review Pathways

Nipah Vaccine With ‘Pandemic Potential’ Wins EMA PRIME Designation

 

The developers of the ChAdOx1 NipahB vaccine will be able to benefit from the early and enhanced support that the European Medicines Agency offers through its priority medicines scheme.

UK MHRA: Bacteriophage Developers Wanted ‘More Clarity’ On UK Framework

 

Julian Beach, interim executive director of healthcare quality and access at the UK drug regulator, the MHRA, tells the Pink Sheet how the agency is responding to increased efforts to develop bacteriophage therapies.

User Fee-Funded Staff Would Drop In FY 2026 US FDA Budget

 

The reductions across medical product programs in the agency’s budget request include hundreds of positions funded by user fees, which may foreshadow its upcoming user fee restructuring strategy.

EMA Official Clarifies Benefits And Limitations Of Innovation Pathways

 

A European Medicines Agency official provided an overview and update of the support the EMA offers developers of innovative products and discussed, among other things, its Innovation Task Force, Quality Innovation Group and a scientific advice pilot for clinical trials.

More from Pathways & Standards

UK MHRA: Bacteriophage Developers Wanted ‘More Clarity’ On UK Framework

 

Julian Beach, interim executive director of healthcare quality and access at the UK drug regulator, the MHRA, tells the Pink Sheet how the agency is responding to increased efforts to develop bacteriophage therapies.

LDT Final Act? US FDA Will Not Appeal District Court Decision Vacating Final Rule

 

The US FDA ended efforts to regulate lab-developed tests as medical devices for now when it did not appeal a decision from the Eastern District of Texas that tossed out the agency's final rule.

MHRA Backs Bacteriophage Innovation To Fight Antimicrobial Resistance

 

The UK regulator wants to help companies to develop bacteriophages for the treatment of infections. Its first guidance on this topic offers advice to researchers and sets out the regulatory requirements they will need to meet.