An Evaluation of the Swissmedic Regulatory Framework for New Active Substances.

BACKGROUND: Swissmedic is a major regulatory agency that has been benchmarking its timelines for 20 years. To better understand the Swissmedic review times and to examine whether measures introduced to accelerate the process were effective, a retrospective analysis was undertaken. The objective was to provide a breakdown of where time is spent in the phases of Swissmedic's approval process (validation, scientific assessment, authorisation) and how this compared to other major authorities. METHODS: Data on Swissmedic, EMA and FDA product approvals were collected from websites or through direct communication, using a standardised CIRS method and milestones previously identified, focusing on new active substances approved 2019-2021. RESULTS: In 2019, 2020, and 2021, Swissmedic median approval times were 520, 470, and 392 days, respectively. The decrease over this time was mainly observed in the Authorisation Phase and can be attributed to lower proportions of applications with multiple "labelling loops", in addition to shorter times for final label negotiation. While Swissmedic had the longest overall approval time (447 days) compared to EMA (428) and FDA (244), the timelines were more comparable when considering only the agency's time spent on the scientific assessment, with Swissmedic at 194 days, EMA at 218 days, and FDA at 184 days. CONCLUSIONS: These observations represent an important analysis of Swissmedic regulatory activity timelines, demonstrate the impact of process improvements, and emphasise the importance of measuring timelines. Swissmedic will continue to expedite its processes also by promoting international collaborations with like-minded authorities.

A decade comparison of regulatory decision patterns for oncology products to all other non-oncology products among Swissmedic, European Medicines Agency, and US Food and Drug Administration.

Consensus of regulatory decisions on the same Marketing Authorization Application (MAA) are critical for stakeholders. In this context, regulatory decision patterns from the Swissmedic (SMC), the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), and the European Medicines Agency (EMA) were analyzed for hemato-oncology products (OP) and non-oncology products (NOP). We compared 336 SMC regulatory decisions between 2009 and 2018 on new active substances with the EMA and the FDA for OP (n = 77) and NOP (n = 259) regarding approval rates, consensus, and divergent decisions. For OP MAA, we analyzed the underlying reasons for divergent decisions; for consensus decisions, the similarity and strictness of labeling. For OP, the approval rate for the SMC was 88.4%, the EMA 91.3%, and the FDA 95.7%. For NOP, the SMC had an approval rate of 86.2%, the EMA of 93.8%, and the FDA of 88.8%. The consensus decision rate among agencies was 88.4% for OP and 84.4% for NOP. The main clinical driver for divergent decisions for OP was nonrandomized trial design and low patient numbers. Comparing the approved indication wordings, the highest similarity was between the SMC and the EMA, and lowest for the FDA and the EMA. Investigating label strictness, the FDA numerically had the highest but not-statistically significant number of strict labels. The approval rate stratified by disease area (OP and NOP) differed among the SMC, the EMA, and the FDA. High concordance in regulatory decisions was observed between agencies for OP as well as NOP. Reasons for divergent decisions regarding OP were mainly due to scientific uncertainties. Comparing strictness of indications, numerical but no statistically significant differences were observed between agencies.

A Comparative Review of Marketing Authorization Decisions in Switzerland, the EU, and the USA.

BACKGROUND: In this study we compared Swissmedic's (SMC's) regulatory marketing authorization decisions to those of the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and European drug regulatory authorities (EU). We investigated the overall similarity of the regulatory decisions, approval, and postmarketing withdrawal rates in the 3 jurisdictions. In case regulatory decisions diverged, we analyzed the reasons for rejection of marketing authorization applications (MAAs). METHODS: The study comprises 255 new molecular entity (NME) MAAs assessed by SMC by the EU and FDA between 2005 through 2014. Study parameters included the regulatory decision, postmarketing withdrawal rates, and the official reasons for rejection. RESULTS: Regulatory decisions converged to a high degree among all 3 agencies (between 84% and 90%). SMC's average approval rate (84%) was slightly lower than those of the FDA (87%) and the EU (91%). Postmarketing withdrawal rates were generally low (4%-5%) but were 3 to 5 times higher when decisions among the drug regulatory authorities (DRAs) diverged. SMC's primary grounds for rejection were lack of efficacy (45%) and safety (40%). CONCLUSIONS: The 3 investigated DRAs adhere largely to the same scientific principles and regulatory guidelines; therefore, remaining disparities ought to be considered in a cultural, legal and public health priority context.