Close

MHRA Launches Public Consultation on New Rare Disease Therapies Framework to Strengthen UK’s Global Position

Note* - All images used are for editorial and illustrative purposes only and may not originate from the original news provider or associated company.

Related stories

When to Bring in Outside Help for FDA Cybersecurity Compliance (and What to Look For)

Medical device cybersecurity has become too important to treat...

Billerud Introduces New Pharmaceutical Packaging Option

Billerud has officially introduced PharmaKraft, a specialized fibre-based packaging...

AstraZeneca Advances AI Drug Discovery Deal with insitro

AstraZeneca has inked a billion-dollar AI drug discovery partnership...
- Advertisement -

The Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) has launched a public consultation on a proposed Rare Disease Therapies Framework a regulatory proposal that would introduce a new development and authorisation pathway for therapies targeting rare diseases in the United Kingdom. The consultation, published on 21 May 2026, is open until 30 July 2026, and the MHRA is calling on pharmaceutical companies, biotechnology developers, contract research organisations, academics, and clinicians to contribute to the shaping of the final framework.

The proposed framework represents a structured regulatory response to the well-documented barriers that prevent rare disease therapies from reaching patients under conventional development models. It is specifically designed for therapies targeting conditions with a prevalence of typically one in approximately 50,000 or fewer in the UK, where the limitations of standard development pathways are most pronounced.

At the centre of the Rare Disease Therapies Framework is a newly proposed instrument called the Investigational Marketing Authorisation (IMA) a single authorisation that combines clinical trial approval with a progressive route to marketing authorisation. The IMA pathway is designed to remove the need for sponsors to manage a separate, sequential transition from clinical trial approval to marketing authorisation, replacing it with a coherent lifecycle that supports rolling data submissions, modular assessments, and earlier patient access where limited but compelling evidence exists.

The Investigational Marketing Authorisation also incorporates structured post-authorisation evidence generation requirements for safety, quality, and efficacy, ensuring that earlier access does not come at the cost of regulatory rigour.

The framework explicitly supports adaptive and innovative trial designs, including basket trials, umbrella trials, and hybrid designs that incorporate real-world evidence. It acknowledges that surrogate or patient-relevant endpoints may be appropriate where conventional endpoints are not feasible. The MHRA has also confirmed its openness to the use of computational modelling, digital twins, and non-animal methods where scientifically justified.

Traditional rare disease development programmes typically take between 10 and 12 years to reach marketing authorisation a timeline driven by linear phase progression and limited early regulatory engagement. The proposed Rare Disease Therapies Framework is designed to compress these timelines meaningfully, particularly during early phases and regulatory decision-making processes.

For larger pharmaceutical organisations, the framework creates new opportunities to engage with very rare indications through more iterative investment strategies within a more predictable regulatory environment. For smaller developers and academic institutions, the framework is intended to provide earlier regulatory certainty and structured scientific advice from the outset of development.

The Rare Disease Therapies Framework is technology-agnostic and applicable across a broad range of therapy types, including advanced therapy medicinal products, individualised medicines, gene-based therapies, digital-enabled medicinal products, innovative manufacturing platforms, and repurposed medicines. This scope is designed to ensure the framework remains fit for purpose as science and technology continue to evolve.

The framework has been developed with input from the Rare Disease Consortium a cross-sector group that includes the MHRA, the Health Research Authority, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, the Department of Health and Social Care, NHS England, patient advocacy organisations, academic institutions, and industry partners.

Public Health Minister Sharon Hodgson stated that the proposals represent an important step towards a more agile and compassionate system one that recognises the unique challenges of rare disease research while maintaining the highest standards of patient safety.

The MHRA has highlighted that the UK possesses distinctive strengths for rare disease innovation: a strong academic base, a single national genomics provider, and the scale and diversity of NHS datasets. The Rare Disease Therapies Framework is designed to utilise these strengths within a coherent enabling structure, positioning the UK as a destination for rare disease therapy development and clinical trials.

The MHRA consultation on the draft Rare Disease Therapies Framework runs until 30 July 2026. The MHRA will be arranging a series of general engagement sessions over the summer while the consultation is underway and responses are being considered. Industry input is described as critical to enabling earlier access to potentially life-saving therapies for patients living with rare diseases, and the MHRA is encouraging early engagement meetings throughout the consultation period. The agency has also confirmed that the Rare Disease Therapies Framework was first announced in November 2025.

Never miss a pharmaceutical headline

The pharmaceutical industry moves fast – stay on top of it with our must - read briefings.

  • The top pharma and life sciences stories, straight to your inbox
  • The biggest news, features, interviews, and analysis
  • Dedicated coverage of the key developments driving the global pharmaceutical sector

Subscribe

- Never miss a story with notifications

- Gain full access to our premium content

- Browse free from any location or device.

Media Packs

Expand Your Reach With Our Customized Solutions Empowering Your Campaigns To Maximize Your Reach & Drive Real Results!

– Access the Media Pack Now

– Book a Conference Call

– Leave Message for Us to Get Back

Latest stories

Related stories

When to Bring in Outside Help for FDA Cybersecurity Compliance (and What to Look For)

Medical device cybersecurity has become too important to treat...

Billerud Introduces New Pharmaceutical Packaging Option

Billerud has officially introduced PharmaKraft, a specialized fibre-based packaging...

AstraZeneca Advances AI Drug Discovery Deal with insitro

AstraZeneca has inked a billion-dollar AI drug discovery partnership...

Managing Quality and Regulatory Risks in Pharmaceutical Technology Transfer

Technology transfer moves more than manufacturing instructions. It moves process knowledge, supplier dependencies, labeling requirements, packaging specifications, and the evidence needed to demonstrate control. For medical device manufacturers, including those supporting drug-device combination products, these interfaces can become recurring sources of compliance gaps during site transitions, acquisitions, and remediation. The central problem is often not a missing procedure. It is a quality system that allows connected activities to change independently. A label revision may be approved while packaging artwork, supplier instructions, or production-system data still reflect an obsolete version. Staying inspection-ready requires manufacturers to manage these dependencies as one controlled system. Why Compliance Gaps Keep Recurring Findings are treated as documentation defects Revising a procedure can resolve an immediate discrepancy without changing the behavior that caused it. If unclear decision rights, weak escalation, or ineffective training remain, the same failure may surface elsewhere. Corrective and preventive action should distinguish the observed finding from its underlying cause and establish how effectiveness will be demonstrated. Ownership is divided across connected functions Quality, Regulatory Affairs, labeling, packaging engineering, operations, suppliers, and digital-system owners often maintain separate workflows. Each team may complete its assigned task while an interface remains uncontrolled. For example, changing an instruction for use can affect packaging configuration, translations, technical documentation, inventory disposition, and release controls. Transitions expose unresolved weaknesses Acquisitions and site transfers can introduce conflicting procedures, incomplete knowledge transfer, or different assumptions about validated processes. Regulatory changes add further demands. When these events coincide with CAPA or change-control backlogs, teams may prioritize administrative closure over risk reduction. Without a coordinated impact assessment, local fixes can create new gaps downstream. Establish the Regulatory Baseline Inspection readiness starts with knowing which requirements apply to the product, activity, and market. Pharmaceutical, device, and combination-product obligations are not interchangeable; transfer planning should identify the applicable requirements rather than assume one quality framework covers every operation. According to FDA’s Quality Management System Regulation overview and FAQs, the QMSR became effective on February 2, 2026, incorporates ISO 13485:2016 by reference, and introduced the updated device inspection process under Compliance Program 7382.850. ISO 13485 certification does not exempt a manufacturer from FDA inspection or guarantee compliance with FDA requirements. For devices marketed in the European Union, Regulation (EU) 2017/745, Annex I, Section 23, provides the primary requirements for information supplied with devices, including labels and instructions for use. Teams should assess the applicable provisions alongside relevant language, product-specific, and market requirements. A labeling review should therefore evaluate required content and consistency with the device’s intended purpose and supporting documentation—not merely artwork accuracy. How to Identify the Real Gaps Begin with a cross-functional assessment that follows actual product and information flows. Select representative transfers, label changes, supplier changes, and CAPAs, then trace each from initiation through implementation and effectiveness review. Map dependencies: Identify affected specifications, suppliers, packaging components, systems, validation activities, and training. Compare records with practice: Check whether approved procedures match what operators and reviewers actually do. Test traceability: Follow a requirement through technical documentation, labeling, production instructions, and release evidence. Examine recurrence: Look for repeated deviations, reopened actions, overdue changes, and findings shared across sites. Assess capacity: Determine whether qualified owners have enough time and authority to complete corrective work. Prioritize gaps by potential patient or user harm, regulatory impact, likelihood of recurrence, and detectability. Document the rationale; an old overdue item is not automatically more important than a newly identified high-risk weakness. Align Quality, Labeling, Packaging, and Change Control Create a coordinated remediation plan with one accountable owner for each action, named contributors, acceptance criteria, and required evidence. Separate immediate containment from systemic correction. Containment might prevent obsolete labels from being issued; correction might redesign approval and implementation controls so obsolete versions cannot return. Use change control as the integration point. Before approval, evaluate effects on regulatory submissions or notifications, technical documentation, supplier controls, packaging performance, validation, electronic master data, inventory, and training. Record both identified impacts and justified decisions that particular activities are unaffected. During technology transfer, define readiness gates before production or release responsibilities move. These should address the transfer of process knowledge, acceptance criteria, receiving-site capability, required qualification or validation, approved documents, and personnel competence. The appropriate evidence depends on the product and process; a generic checklist cannot replace a documented assessment. Finally, verify implementation where the work happens. Confirm that current instructions are available, suppliers received approved requirements, systems contain correct versions, and affected personnel can perform their tasks. A signed approval is not evidence that every downstream change took effect. Mistakes That Undermine Inspection Readiness Closing CAPAs on task completion alone: Effectiveness checks should test whether the underlying failure has been controlled. Updating labels in isolation: Assess packaging, supplier, system, documentation, and inventory consequences. Counting closures instead of evidence: Dashboards need defensible records behind their status indicators. ...

Subscribe

- Never miss a story with notifications

- Gain full access to our premium content

- Browse free from any location or device.

Media Packs

Expand Your Reach With Our Customized Solutions Empowering Your Campaigns To Maximize Your Reach & Drive Real Results!

– Access theMedia Pack Now

– Book a Conference Call

– Leave Message for Us to Get Back

Translate »