Japan's Special Approval for Emergency System During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

The development of drugs for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is a global challenge. In Japan, remdesivir was approved in May 2020 for COVID-19 caused by the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection. In February 2021, a vaccine against COVID-19 was approved. These two approvals were made using the Special Approval for Emergency system in Japan. This Japanese system was started in 2010 and has been used to approve four drugs to date, including remdesivir and the Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine. This paper discusses future challenges for Japan's Special Approval for Emergency system and organizes what can be learned from experiences to date. As a result, I would like to point Out the following issues. (i) Special Approval for Emergency is a system for approving drugs approved overseas, not a system for approving drugs originally developed in Japan. A system to approve drugs that have not been approved in foreign countries needs to be considered. (ii) In the Special Approval for Emergency system, it is necessary to ensure that postmarketing activities are conducted in accordance with the Risk Management Plan and the conditions of approval, to disclose the results in a timely and speedy manner, and to judge the appropriateness of continued approval based on the results of postmarketing activities.

Abortion exceptionalism and the mifepristone REMS.

Since its initial approval, mifepristone has been regulated with a strictness out of proportion to its risks. This paper explores how the regulation of mifepristone, specifically the Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategies (REMS) requirements, are a manifestation of abortion exceptionalism-the phenomenon of abortion being treated differently under the law than other comparable health care. The weight of medical and public health evidence demonstrates that mifepristone is extremely safe and the REMS are unnecessary. In fact, the mifepristone REMS is neither justified by the absolute risk of the medication itself, nor comprehensible as a logical response to the risks actually posed by mifepristone. Nevertheless, the REMS remain in place. From July 2020 through January 2021, enforcement of the REMS elements requiring in-person distribution of mifepristone were enjoined by court order due the COVID-19 pandemic. In other words, COVID-19 created a context so exceptional as to temporarily outweigh abortion exceptionalism. However, the reprieve did not last-in January 2021, the Supreme Court ruled to dissolve the injunction, allowing FDA to resume enforcement of the in-person requirements. In response, advocates called on the incoming Biden administration to direct FDA to suspend enforcement once more. This regulatory whiplash is itself further evidence that the REMS flow from political, rather than scientific, concerns. Abortion exceptionalism is apparent in the specific requirements of the REMS, and it is also apparent in the precarity of the regulatory scheme itself.

The drug war must end: The right to life, liberty and security of the person during the COVID-19 pandemic for people who use drugs.

Since the start of the opioid epidemic in 2016, the Downtown Eastside community of Vancouver, Canada, has lost many pioneering leaders, activists and visionaries to the war on drugs. The Vancouver Area Network of Drug Users (VANDU), the Western Aboriginal Harm Reduction Society (WAHRS), and the British Columbia Association People on Opiate Maintenance (BCAPOM) are truly concerned about the increasing overdose deaths that have continued since 2016 and have been exacerbated by the novel coronavirus (SARS-COVID-19) despite many unique and timely harm reduction announcements by the British Columbia (B.C.) government. Some of these unique interventions in B.C., although in many cases only mere announcements with limited scope, are based on the philosophy of safe supply to illegal street drugs. Despite all the efforts during the pandemic, overdose deaths have spiked by over 100% compared to the previous year. Therefore, we urge the Canadian federal government, specifically the Honorable Patty Hajdu, the federal Minister of Health, to decriminalize simple possession immediately by granting exemption under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act. The Canadian federal government has a moral obligation under Sect. 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms to protect the basic human rights of marginalized Canadians.

Regulators, Pivotal Clinical Trials, and Drug Regulation in the Age of COVID-19.

Medicine regulators rely on pivotal clinical trials to make decisions about approving a new drug, but little is known about how they judge whether pivotal trials justify the approval of new drugs. We explore this issue by looking at the positions of 3 major regulators: the European Medicines Agency, Food and Drug Administration, and Health Canada. Here we report their views and the implications of those views for the approval process. On various points, the 3 regulators are ambiguous, consistent, and demonstrate flexibility. The range of views may well reflect different regulatory cultures. Although clinical trial information from pivotal trials is becoming more available, regulators are still reluctant to provide detailed information about how that information is interpreted. As medicines and vaccines come up for approval for treatment of COVID-19, transparency in how pivotal trials are interpreted will be critical in determining how these treatments should be used.

Pandemic Best Regulatory Practices: An Urgent Need in the COVID-19 Pandemic.

As large numbers of candidate drugs and vaccines for potential use in the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic are being investigated, medicine regulators globally must now make urgent, informed, contextually risk-1based decisions regarding clinical trials and marketing authorizations. They must do this with the flexibility demanded by the pandemic while maintaining their core risk assessment and public safety functions. We lay out the critical role of regulators in the current crisis and offer eight "pandemic best regulatory practices." These should support both the regulatory public heath imperative and assure timely patient access to effective, safe, quality products worldwide during this emergency-thus contributing to ending this pandemic as quickly, effectively, and safely as possible.

COVID-19 and off label use of drugs: an ethical viewpoint.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 outbreak is rapidly spread over the world and kills infected patients. There is no proven medication for its treatment, so, all of the medications used for treatment are considered to be off-label. Off-label uses are not under regulation in the outbreak because there is no specific regulation for this condition. OBJECTIVES: In this short communication we aim at describing two ways of off-label use as clinical practice or investigational use. Further, we will describe the third way of off-label use, we named it pseudo-research and then we will state the most possible ethical challenges of off-label use for better perceptions and responsibility. RESULTS: The WHO considers off-label uses as country-specific. All international regulatory bodies consider off-label prescription as the physician's responsibility and legal by necessitating some requirements. There is no international guideline for regulating investigational off-label uses as clinical practice. CONCLUSION: There are different types of approaches, none of them is comprehensive and conclusive. Furthermore, respecting the four ethical principles necessitates codification and strict regulation of off-label uses either as clinical practice or investigational. Besides, compilation of a special guideline based on ethical principles especially non-maleficence and autonomy for investigational off-label uses in disasters is highly recommended.

New regulatory strategies to manage medicines shortages in Europe.

Medicine shortages have been spreading in European countries. In many cases, the unavailability of medicinal products has a substantial impact on the capability of National Healthcare Systems in ensuring the continuity of care. Shortages originate from multifactorial causes. In particular, they can be due to supply-related factors (e.g., manufacturing issues, regulatory issues, logistics, distribution) and demand-related ones (e.g., fluctuating drug demand, parallel market, tendering, price and reimbursement policies). However, some extraordinary geopolitical events (e.g., Brexit) may also affect medicines' availability. The capability of European Regulatory Authorities and other stakeholders, which are involved in the pharmaceutical distribution chain and the healthcare assistance services, to define suitable problem-solving strategies has been limited for years by the fragmentation of the European regulatory framework, starting from the lack of a univocal definition of a medicine shortage. Only in 2019, the EMA and HMA joint task force released the first harmonized "shortage" definition in the European Economic Area (EEA) and guidance on public communication. This manuscript aims to review the current European regulatory framework on medicine shortages. To support the activities of regulators, manufacturers and other healthcare professionals, an algorithm was also proposed to be used as a harmonized procedure to determine the shortage/unavailability impact on public health and to rationalize the problem-solving strategies adopted in all different settings.