Abstract
This paper highlights the structure and content of the clinical sections of the United States, European, and Japanese submissions with emphasis on the clinical summaries that are used by the three regional regulatory authorities for their assessment of registration dossiers. The comparative analysis of the three clinical summaries dealing with efficacy and safety results shows a high level of similarities in content, despite the cultural and medical differences, as well as differences in assessment approaches and legal requirements in the three regions. The different assessment approaches as well as the different ways to obtain advice regarding drug development leading to registration are also evaluated.
Keywords
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
