Registering medicines for low-income countries: how suitable are the stringent review procedures of the World Health Organisation, the US Food and Drug Administration and the European Medicines Agency?

New medicines are registered after a resource-demanding process. Unfortunately, in low-income countries (LICs), demand outweighs resources. To facilitate registration in LICs, stringent review procedures of the European Medicines Agency (EMA Article-58), Food and Drug Administration (FDA PEPFAR-linked review) and WHO Prequalification programme have been established. Only the PEPFAR-linked review gives approval, while the others make recommendations for approval. This study assessed the performance and discussed the challenges of these three stringent review procedures. Data from WHO, FDA, EMA, Medline and Internet were analysed. Over 60% of medicines reviewed by stringent review procedures are manufactured in India. Until 2012, WHO prequalified 400 medicines (211 vaccines, 130 antiretrovirals, 29 tuberculostatics, 15 antimalarials and 15 others). PEPFAR-linked review approved 156 antiretrovirals, while EMA Article 58 recommended approval of 3 antiretrovirals, 1 vaccine and 1 antimalarial. WHO Prequalification and PEPFAR-linked review are free of charge and as a result have accelerated access to antiretrovirals. They both built capacity in sub-Saharan Africa, although WHO prequalification relies technically on stringent regulatory authorities and financially on donors. Article-58 offers the largest disease coverage and strongest technical capacities, is costly and involves fewer LICs. To meet the high demand for quality medicines in LICs, these stringent review procedures need to enlarge their disease coverage. To improve registration, EMA Article 58 should actively involve LICs. Furthermore, LIC regulatory activities must not be fully resigned to stringent review procedure.

Efficacy and safety of intermittent preventive treatment in schoolchildren with sulfadoxine/pyrimethamine (SP) and SP plus piperaquine in Democratic Republic of the Congo: a randomised controlled trial.

In endemic areas, malaria and its adverse effects in schoolchildren may be prevented by intermittent preventive treatment (IPTsc). However, the most appropriate drug regimen for IPTsc remains to be identified. A randomised controlled trial was conducted in Kinshasa, DRC. Enrolled schoolchildren were assigned to a passive control arm (n = 212), sulfadoxine/pyrimethamine (SP) (n = 202) or SP plus piperaquine (SP/PQ) (n = 202). The primary endpoint was haemoglobin (Hb) change. Secondary endpoints were anaemia, parasitaemia prevalence and clinical malaria incidence. Data were analysed by modified intention-to-treat (mITT) and per-protocol. A linear mixed mode was used due to repeated measurements. Of 616 enrolled children, 410 (66.6%) were eligible for mITT analysis. The control arm was used as reference. After 12 months, the Hb level increased by 0.20 g/dL (95% CI -0.61 to 0.47; P = 0.168) and 0.39 g/dL (0.12-0.66; P <0.01) in the SP and SP/PQ arms, respectively. SP treatment reduced anaemia, malaria parasitaemia and clinical malaria by 10% (0-20%; P = 0.06), 19% (2-33%; P = 0.042) and 25% (-32 to 57%; P = 0.37), respectively. The corresponding values for SP/PQ were 28% (19-37%; P <0.001), 40% (26-52%; P <0.001) and 58% (17-79%; P <0.01). No deaths or severe adverse events (SAEs) were observed. SP/PQ offered substantial protection against anaemia, malaria parasitaemia and clinical malaria and showed no SAEs. SP/PQ, a combination of two long-acting non-artemisinin-based antimalarials, may be a valuable option for IPTsc in Africa.