Faculty of Pharmacy, University of Belgrade, Belgrade, Serbia.
Stem Cells Transl Med. 2012 Dec;1(12):898-908. doi: 10.5966/sctm.2012-0037. Epub 2012 Dec 4.
Recent development of a wide range of regulatory standards applicable to production and use of tissues, cells, and other biologics (or biologicals), as advanced therapies, indicates considerable interest in the regulation of these products. The objective of this study was to analyze and compare high-tier documents within the Australian, European, and U.S. biologic drug regulatory environments using qualitative methodology. Cohort 1 of the selected 18 high-tier regulatory documents from the European Medicines Agency (EMA), the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), and the Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) regulatory frameworks were subject to a manual documentary analysis. These documents were consistent with the legal requirements for manufacturing and use of biologic drugs in humans and fall into six different categories. Manual analysis included a terminology search. The occurrence, frequency, and interchangeable use of different terms and phrases were recorded in the manual documentary analysis. Despite obvious differences, manual documentary analysis revealed certain consistency in use of terminology across analyzed frameworks. Phrase search frequencies have shown less uniformity than the search of terms. Overall, the EMA framework's documents referred to "medicinal products" and "marketing authorization(s)," the FDA documents discussed "drug(s)" or "biologic(s)," and the TGA documents referred to "biological(s)." Although high-tier documents often use different terminology they share concepts and themes. Documents originating from the same source have more conjunction in their terminology although they belong to different frameworks (i.e., Good Clinical Practice requirements based on the Declaration of Helsinki, 1964). Automated (software-based) documentary analysis should be obtained for the conceptual and relational analysis.
近年来,广泛的监管标准适用于组织、细胞和其他生物制品(或生物制剂)的生产和使用,作为先进疗法,表明人们对这些产品的监管非常感兴趣。本研究的目的是使用定性方法分析和比较澳大利亚、欧洲和美国生物药物监管环境中的高层文件。从欧洲药品管理局(EMA)、美国食品和药物管理局(FDA)和治疗商品管理局(TGA)监管框架中选择的 18 份高层监管文件的队列 1 进行了手动文件分析。这些文件符合人类生物药物制造和使用的法律要求,分为六类。手动分析包括术语搜索。在手动文件分析中记录了不同术语和短语的出现、频率和可互换使用情况。尽管存在明显差异,但手动文件分析显示,分析框架之间的术语使用存在一定的一致性。短语搜索频率的一致性不如术语搜索。总体而言,EMA 框架的文件提到了“药品”和“上市许可”,FDA 文件讨论了“药物”或“生物制剂”,而 TGA 文件则提到了“生物制剂”。虽然高层文件经常使用不同的术语,但它们共享概念和主题。尽管来自同一来源的文件属于不同的框架,但它们的术语更具一致性(即基于 1964 年赫尔辛基宣言的良好临床实践要求)。应获取自动(基于软件)文件分析,以进行概念和关系分析。