[FOCUS]Government sophistication to generic regulations

A few years ago, a multinational pharmaceuticals announced “high quality” by launching generics in the domestic market.

 

It is the aspiration to show good quality generics based on strict production management, product monitoring and quality assurance system that have long been recognized in the global market.

 

At the time, the head of the licensing review department of the Ministry of Food and Drug Safety, who got the news, rejected that "the quality of generic products is meaningless." Generics must pass strict standards from drug substances to finished product manufacturing facilities.

 

In addition, a conformity test should be made in a bioequivalence study demonstrating that the generics are equivalent to the rate and concentration of original drug absorption.

 

"Generic products that have passed all government-set standards and have been approved for sale should be regarded as equal in quality.“ The MFDS is trying to tighten restrictions on generics after last year's issue of Valsartan impurity.

 

The MFDS announced the legislative draft of the “Revision of Partial Rules on the Safety of Pharmaceuticals,” etc.

 

on the 18th.

 

It contains a significant tightening of the licensing requirements for all fair commissioned manufacturing generics.

 

It means that the GMP evaluation data, standards and test method data, which have been exempted from the consigned generic permit screening data, must be submitted.

 

It is noteworthy that MFDS referred to “high quality generics” as the background for strengthening generic regulations.

 

According to the Regulatory Impact Analysis Report of the revised regulations, the MFDS said that they will secure the trust of the people providing 'high quality' medicines and improving the soundness of drug distribution through the quality improvement of generics for each clause that strengthens the regulation of generics.

 

The intention is to supply high-quality generics by strengthening generic regulations.

 

It also means that there is differences in quality between generic products.

 

This is contrary to the conventional view that "quality is equal if it passes the strict licensing process." It seems possible that even with the MFDS, there may be some low quality generics.

 

It is also ambiguous to see how the strengthening of permit standards is related to quality improvement.

 

Submission of GMP assessment data by authorized generic means re-release of data that has already been verified by the MFDS.

 

GMP assessment data need not be submitted when consigning a product that is identical to a previously approved generic.

 

However, one year after the proclamation of amendment, the authorized generics will also be required to produce three manufacturing units (batch) and submit relevant GMP data for approval.

 

The submission of GMP evaluation data by authorized generics disappeared just five years ago.

 

The MFDS implemented ‘the GMP Compliance Certification System’ in 2014, which permits Pharmaceutical production that all factories producing pharmaceuticals requires passing the standards set by the MFDS every three years.

 

At this time, regulations for mandatory production of licensed drugs were relaxed.

 

It was made possible for the establishment within the validity period of the conformity assessment to replace the data on the evaluation of the GMP implementation with the conformity assessment.

 

They have already laid the foundation for strengthening quality management by introducing the ‘Certificate of GMP Compliance of a Manufacturer', and in the situation where the approved facility has determined the suitability of licensed drugs, it is decided that it is redundant regulation to receive the GMP evaluation data of the authorized generics again.

 

The same applies to co-bioequivalence regulations currently underway.

 

On April 15, the MFDS announced a partial revision of the “Regulations on the Authorization, Declaration, and Review of Pharmaceuticals,” which includes tightening regulations on co-bioequivalence regulations.

 

According to the amendment, regulations will be tightened so that up to three authorized generic manufacturers are allowed to one original manufacturer one year after the notification.

 

This means that up to four generics will be granted for each bioequivalence test.

 

After three years, consiged bioequivalence is completely banned.

 

Four years after the notification, only one generic may be approved in one bioequivalence study.

 

As a result, after four years, the same product from the same manufacturing facility must be tested for bioequivalence separately.

 

I don't know what it is related to run separate bioequivalence tests on the same product with ‘high quality generics’.

 

Goal of the MFDS is clear that it tightens regulations of generics.

 

Because of the serious difficulty of generics, the intention is to reduce the number of generics in the market by raising licensing barriers.

 

It is clear that the overflow of generic manufacturing contractors is the cause of generic upheaval.

 

It is also clear that generic upheavals were triggered by changes in government permit regulations.

 

Wouldn't it be better to admit that the government's policies encouraged generic upheaval and try to persuade the reasons for changing the policy stance?

 

Rather, the cause of “quality improvement,” which is not related to the regulations, can lead to confusion in the industrial field.

 

This leads to distrust in government policy.

 

Of course, the government may adjust the regulatory intensity in response to changing market conditions.

 

However, companies need to be able to believe and follow only by providing a clear justification and justification for the new policy.

 

If the government produces a policy without justification and changes the policy stance, in the turn of a hand, credibility falls.