Capacity Assessment of the National Medicines Regulatory Authority in a Low -Income Country.

BACKGROUND: Access to medical products of the required efficacy, quality and safety is essential for everyone's health and wellbeing. To achieve this milestone, every country needs a robust and strong performing National Regulatory Authority (NRA) that is independent and outcome oriented. With the help of the World Health Organization (WHO), the global benchmarking tool is the gold standard used to assess the regulatory capacity of NRAs. OBJECTIVES: This study assessed the capacity of the National Medicines Regulatory Authority in Sierra Leone to perform its regulatory functions. METHODS: This descriptive cross-sectional study used both qualitative and quantitative approaches. A self-administered questionnaire was used for the quantitative approach, and the qualitative aspect consisted of a desk review looking at key regulatory documents such as laws, regulations, policies, guidelines, standard operating procedures and reports. The data collection tool used was the WHO global benchmarking tool (GBT) for "Evaluation of National Regulatory System of Medical Product Version VI. RESULTS: The majority of the participants had a postgraduate degree (60%), and 72% had over 10 years of experience working at the NRA. Out of 251 sub-indicators assessed, 85 (34%) sub-indicators were fully implemented. Of the eight (8) functions assessed, sub-indicators related to clinical trial oversight and vigilance were the most implemented, with 67% and 62%, respectively. Of the 9 indicators assessed, 79% of the sub-indicators that are related to quality and risk management were implemented. The results of this study showed that PBSL operates at maturity level 1. The absence of laws and regulations that give PBSL the mandate to perform its regulatory functions was a major challenge even though other indicators were met. The study reported other challenges toward effective functioning, including but not limited to a lack of sufficient staff, weak enforcement of the sale of medicines and a poorly equipped quality control laboratory.

Adverse Events Following Immunization with Novel Oral Polio Vaccine Type 2, and the Experience and Challenges of Reporting in Sierra Leone.

Background: The manifestation and spread of neuroinvasive circulating vaccine-derived polioviruses (cVDPVs) across several countries, which led to the emergency use of the novel oral polio vaccine type 2 (nOPV2), raised concerns about adverse events following immunization (AEFI) surveillance. We assessed the attributes of AEFI with nOPV2 and examined stakeholder experiences and challenges in AEFI surveillance in Sierra Leone. Methods: Using a mixed method approach, we retrospectively reviewed passive data collected during a 2021 immunization campaign, and conducted semi-structured, interviews with vaccinators, district AEFI focal persons, and key stakeholders at the national Expanded Program on Immunization and the National Medicines Regulatory Authority. AEFI were categorized using the Medical Dictionary for Regulatory Activities (MedDRA) Preferred Terms (PTs) and System Organ Class (SOC). Outcomes were stratified as recovered or not, with preventability and causality assessed using the Schumock and Thornton and World Health Organization (WHO) algorithms, respectively. Results: A total of 528 suspected AEFI were documented, predominantly affecting children aged 28 days to 23 months (63.3%). Most reported AEFI were administration site conditions and general disorders, with pyrexia being the predominant PT. Of 80 serious cases, 78 recovered, with 74 having an inconsistent causal relationship with the vaccine. Most serious cases (78) were deemed non-preventable, with only two being probably preventable. AEFI reporting was not routinely carried out across the group of people interviewed. AEFI reporting was not consistently performed, with discrepancies in defining reportable events and confusion over responsibility. Challenges with the open data kit (ODK) platform were noted, along with perceived inadequacies in training. Conclusion: While the nOPV2 is relatively new, the majority of AEFI were not serious, and most serious cases were not causally linked to the vaccine. Participants exhibited variations in experience and awareness of AEFI reporting.

Quality of Reporting of Adverse Drug Reactions to Antimicrobials Improved Following Operational Research: A before-and-after Study in Sierra Leone (2017-2023).

Background: The quality of pharmacovigilance data is important for guiding medicine safety and clinical practice. In baseline and follow-up studies after introducing interventions to improve the quality of reporting of Individual Case Safety Reports (ICSRs) in Sierra Leone, we compared (a) timeliness and completeness of reporting and (b) patient outcomes classified as 'recovering'. Methods: Baseline (January 2017-December 2021) and follow-up (June 2022-April 2023) studies of ICSRs in the national pharmacovigilance database. Interventions introduced following recommendations from the baseline study included: updating standard operating procedures and guidelines, setting performance targets follow-up of patient outcomes, and training. Results: There were 566 ICSRs in the baseline study and 59 in the follow-up study. Timelines (reporting < 30 days) improved by five-fold (10% at baseline to 47% in follow-up). For the completeness of variables in ICSRs (desired threshold ≥ 90%),this was 44% at baseline and increased to 80% in the follow-up study. 'Recovering' outcomes reduced from 36% (baseline study) to 3% (follow-up study, p < 0.001). Conclusions: Significant improvements in timeliness, completeness, and validation of ICSRs were observed following operational research in Sierra Leone. While enhancing pharmacovigilance and patient safety, this study highlights the important synergistic role operational research can play in improving monitoring and evaluation systems.

Regulating clinical trials in a resource-limited setting during the Ebola public health emergency in Sierra Leone.

Clinical trials during public health emergencies of novel medical products such as therapeutics and vaccines in resource-limited settings are daunting due to the limited capacity for regulatory assessment. Regulating clinical trials during the Ebola outbreak in Sierra Leone required expedited evaluation to identify medical products that could be promptly introduced to combat the epidemic in the absence of approved treatment or prevention. This article explored the decisions taken by the Pharmacy Board of Sierra Leone through its Expert Committee on Medicine Safety and Clinical Trials regarding clinical trials oversight during the Ebola epidemic and the lessons learned. This independent expert committee assessed and provided scientific opinions to the Pharmacy Board of Sierra Leone to inform approval of all clinical trials within 10-15 working days. We also requested for assisted review from the African Vaccine Regulatory Forum and support from the US Food and Drug Administration through a unilateral recognition and reliance memorandum of understanding. In addition, the Agency-ensured structures and systems were in place for reporting and reviewing adverse events and serious adverse events, management of biological samples, submission and review of progress reports, and good clinical practice inspections. Unfortunately, the Ebola epidemic revealed many weaknesses in the country's clinical trials regulatory structure and processes. Government and partners should further offer more resources to build the clinical trial structures and systems so that the Agency will be better poised to handle future public health emergencies.

Inconsistent Country-Wide Reporting of Adverse Drug Reactions to Antimicrobials in Sierra Leone (2017-2021): A Wake-Up Call to Improve Reporting.

Background: Monitoring of adverse drug reactions (ADRs) to antimicrobials is important, as they can cause life-threatening illness, permanent disabilities, and death. We assessed country-wide ADR reporting on antimicrobials and their outcomes. Methods: A cross-sectional study was conducted using individual case safety reports (ICSRs) entered into the national pharmacovigilance database (VigiFlow) during 2017−2021. Results: Of 566 ICSRs, inconsistent reporting was seen, with the highest reporting in 2017 and 2019 (mass drug campaigns for deworming), zero reporting in 2018 (reasons unknown), and only a handful in 2020 and 2021 (since COVID-19). Of 566 ICSRs, 90% were for antiparasitics (actively reported during mass campaigns), while the rest (passive reporting from health facilities) included 8% antibiotics, 7% antivirals, and 0.2% antifungals. In total, 90% of the reports took >30 days to be entered (median = 165; range 2−420 days), while 44% had <75% of all variables filled in (desired target = 100%). There were 10 serious ADRs, 18 drug withdrawals, and 60% of ADRs affected the gastrointestinal system. The patient outcomes (N-566) were: recovered (59.5%), recovering (35.5%), not recovered (1.4%), death (0.2%), and unknown (3.4%). There was no final ascertainment of 'recovering' outcomes. Conclusions: ADR reporting is inconsistent, with delays and incomplete data. This is a wake-up call for introducing active reporting and setting performance targets.