• SKIP TO CONTENT
  • SKIP NAVIGATION
  • Patient Resources
    • COVID-19 Patient Resource Center
    • Clinical Trials
    • Search Clinical Trials
    • Patient Notification System
    • What is Clinical Research?
    • Volunteering for a Clinical Trial
    • Understanding Informed Consent
    • Useful Resources
    • FDA Approved Drugs
  • Professional Resources
    • Research Center Profiles
    • Clinical Trial Listings
    • Market Research
    • FDA Approved Drugs
    • Training Guides
    • Books
    • eLearning
    • Events
    • Newsletters
    • JobWatch
    • White Papers
    • SOPs
    • eCFR and Guidances
  • White Papers
  • Trial Listings
  • Advertise
  • COVID-19
  • iConnect
  • Sign In
  • Create Account
  • Sign Out
  • My Account
Home » Can EU Regulators Keep Up with Innovation?

Can EU Regulators Keep Up with Innovation?

November 8, 2006
CenterWatch Staff

The now infamous TeGenero clinical trial - six patients fell critically ill from an investigational biologic — occurred, ironically, after the EU Clinical Trials Directive had been implemented in the UK in May 2004. Biotechs in the Netherlands, it seems, were adjusting to the adoption of the EU Clinical Trials Directive into national law on March 1, 2006 when the TeGenero incident occurred (March 13). Before that, healthy volunteer trials in the UK had been unregulated.

At the recent Applied Clinical Trials European Summit in Amsterdam, one speaker talked about the long shadow the TeGenero trial will cast not only on the Netherlands but on the entire European Union. Even though the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency’s (MHRA) final report from May identified some Good Clinical Practice discrepancies, the main cause of the severe reactions in the six trial volunteers was an “unexpected biological effect.”...

In the same report, the MHRA called it “a very complex scientific issue” and said that the agency is having it reviewed by an independent, expert scientific group appointed by the Secretary of State for Health.

Seeking outside expertise for the kinds of clinical trials biotechs run may be the wave of the future. Clearly the MHRA does not want to be caught off guard again, nor does any other EU regulatory agency. The sense is that biotechs are going to have to jump through a lot more hoops now before they can test biologicals on humans.

According to the speaker, the Netherlands was one of the more efficient EU countries to seek gene therapy clinical trial approvals before the Directive was passed. The adoption of the Directive has changed the situation there “drastically”, according to one of the speakers at the Summit, due in no small part to the increased number of documents and attendant bureaucracy required for a clinical trial application. In fact, there have been no new biotech product trials started in the Netherlands since the Directive was passed.

Biotechs often are at the forefront of developing orphan drugs — drugs for diseases that have an incidence of fewer than 200,000 in the U.S. and have no chance of becoming blockbusters. Sometimes, biotechs find only one person in a country with the disease they are studying and they generally want to recruit every patient they can find, no matter where they live. But the speaker at the ACT European Summit contended that submitting an entire clinical trial application for a single patient in the Netherlands was a lot of work, compared with other EU countries.

The central question attendees at this conference left with was ‘Will regulators in the EU have the experience necessary to review highly innovative products?’ Trying to avoid another TeGenero is certainly uppermost in every regulator’s mind, but at the same time that shouldn’t prevent biotechs from studying innovative treatments for rare diseases. Regulators in the Netherlands are specifically instructed to consult outside expertise, and it was strongly suggested that the biotech industry and regulators need to collaborate closely. For the sake of future biotech innovations, let’s hope they do.

Upcoming Events

  • 24May

    Powering an Effective Oversight Strategy with Clinical and Operational Insights

  • 25May

    2022 WCG Avoca Quality & Innovation Summit: Own the Future

  • 28Jun

    Effective Root Cause Analysis and CAPA Investigations for the Life Sciences

  • 16Oct

    WCG MAGI's Clinical Research Hybrid Conference - 2022 West

Featured Products

  • Spreadsheet Validation: Tools and Techniques to Make Data in Excel Compliant

    Spreadsheet Validation: Tools and Techniques to Make Data in Excel Compliant

  • Surviving an FDA GCP Inspection

    Surviving an FDA GCP Inspection: Resources for Investigators, Sponsors, CROs and IRBs

Featured Stories

  • Protocol-360x240.png

    Avoid Deviations by Making Protocol Review a Team Effort

  • SelectionProcess-360x240.png

    Give Us a Voice: Sites Clamor for a Say on Vendor Selection

  • Convince-360x240.png

    Use Data and Details to Convince Site Leadership to Add Staff

  • AsktheExpertsBadge-360x240.png

    Ask the Experts: Listing Trial Staff and Others on the Statement of Investigator

Standard Operating Procedures for Risk-Based Monitoring of Clinical Trials

The information you need to adapt your monitoring plan to changing times.

Learn More Here
  • About Us
  • Contact Us
  • Privacy Policy
  • Do Not Sell My Personal Information

Footer Logo

300 N. Washington St., Suite 200, Falls Church, VA 22046, USA

Phone 617.948.5100 – Toll free 866.219.3440

Copyright © 2022. All Rights Reserved. Design, CMS, Hosting & Web Development :: ePublishing