"ISR" - apologies [Regulatives / Guidelines]

posted by The Outlaw Torn – Europe, 2013-04-24 09:44 (4814 d 14:31 ago) – Posting: # 10482
Views: 17,174

❝ I hope this answers your question.


Yes, that answers a lot of my concerns. What I was wondering, more precisely, is the same old question I have on ISR, and that is whether anyone has been referred to CMDh for not providing ISR in a ruMRP. I'd like to hear the committee's reasoning for denying an ruMRP based on lack of ISR, when an ruMRP is based solely on a previously accepted dossier and now back up by several years of the actual product being taken by patients, yada, yada, yada. We are being told to refer back to the Q&A document for our answer, which says nothing or tells me that they expect some kind of justification for lack of ISR or else the ruMRP will be denied, which as I've mentioned before makes no sense. It's so difficult to get go advice, because each country is unsure what another country's position on a given issue will be (see the NL in Helmut's case; everything seemed fine with the other CMSs and DE). Very frustrating.

Complete thread:

UA Flag
Activity
 Admin contact
23,656 posts in 4,994 threads, 1,570 registered users;
281 visitors (0 registered, 281 guests [including 30 identified bots]).
Forum time: 00:16 CEST (Europe/Vienna)

Most scientists today are devoid of ideas, full of fear, intent on
producing some paltry result so that they can add to the flood
of inane papers that now constitutes “scientific progress”
in many areas.    Paul Feyerabend

The Bioequivalence and Bioavailability Forum is hosted by
BEBAC Ing. Helmut Schütz
HTML5