Evaluation of the impact of reliance on the regulatory performance in the South African Health Products Regulatory Authority: implications for African regulatory authorities.

Introduction: The World Health Organization (WHO) advocates the use of reliance practices to enable national regulatory authorities (NRAs) to improve patients' access to medicines. This study considered whether reliance review translates into swifter medicine authorization. Methods: Abridged review outcomes were examined for New Chemical Entity (NCE) and generic applications to the South African Health Products Regulatory Authority (SAHPRA) in Chemistry, Manufacturing and Controls (CMC) and clinical/bioequivalence (BE), as well as overall NCE authorization times. Results: SAHPRA NCE CMC review time was 91 days (abridged) vs. 179 days (full), applicant response time was 34 vs. 105 days, respectively, and there was a >2-fold time reduction for abridged vs. full CMC review (125 vs. 284 days). There was a 99-day decrease in clinical approval time through an abridged review (230 vs. 329 days) and a decrease in marketing authorization time for NCE abridged assessment (446 vs. 619 days). SAHPRA review time for generic applications was 97 days (abridged) vs. 191 days (full); applicant response time was 26 days (abridged) vs. 81 days (full) and there was a >2-fold time reduction for CMC and BE abridged vs. full review (122 vs. 272 days). Conclusion: These results clearly support World Health Organization recommendations for the use of reliance-based regulatory review to expedite the worldwide availability of safe, effective and needed medications.

Regional regulatory harmonisation initiatives: Their potential contribution to the newly established African Medicines Agency.

BACKGROUND: Key regulatory entities can serve as building blocks for the African Medicines Agency (AMA). The aim of this study is to demonstrate how the regional medicines regulatory harmonisation programmes could contribute to AMA's effectiveness and efficiency. METHODS: A literature search was conducted using key words to identify publications about the AMA, African Medicines Regulatory Harmonisation (AMRH) and East African Community Medicines Regulatory Harmonisation programmes (EAC-MRH) from 2009 to 2023. The EAC-MRH programme experience was used to highlight the benefits and challenges of African regulatory harmonisation. RESULTS: As the foundation for the AMA, the AMRH has established structures and workstreams to support its operationalisation, including 10 Technical Committees (TCs) and 5 Regional Economic Committees (RECs). Lessons learned from the EAC-MRH 10-year experience are being used to scale up regulatory harmonisation and could be of value to AMA harmonisation experience. CONCLUSIONS: As of June 2023, 35 of 55 countries have either signed and/or ratified the AMA Treaty, whilst 20 have neither signed nor ratified it. An effective AMA will need strong National Medicines Regulatory Authorities as well as Regional programmes and it is imperative for more well-resourced countries to ratify the treaty to ensure access to essential medical products and technologies for the African people.

Assessment of the effectiveness and efficiency of the economic community of West African States Medicines Regulatory Harmonization initiative by the pharmaceutical industry.

Background: Following the establishment of Economic Community of West African States Medicines Regulatory Harmonization (ECOWAS-MRH) initiative in 2017, it was considered timely to carry out an evaluation of the current status of the initiative's operating model by the pharmaceutical industry users. This study examined the challenges being encountered and identified strategies that would strengthen the ECOWAS-MRH initiative moving forward. Methods: The Process Effectiveness and Efficiency Rating (PEER) questionnaire was used to collect data from manufacturers who have submitted applications to the joint assessment procedure and had identified recommendations for improving the performance of the ECOWAS-MRH initiative. Results: Ten pharmaceutical manufacturer participants (innovator, generic foreign, generic local) all reported that harmonisation of registration requirements was a major benefit, allowing submission of the same dossier to multiple countries, reducing the application burden and saving time and resources. Additionally, receipt of the same list of questions from several countries enables the compilation of a single response package, resulting in shorter timelines for approvals compared to the individualised country responses. Another benefit of a harmonised registration process was the simultaneous accessibility of medicines in various markets. Key challenges included a lack of centralised submission and tracking, differences in regulatory performance of the national medical regulatory authorities, a lack of detailed information for applicants and a low motivation to use the ECOWAS-MRH route with a preference for other regulatory pathways in the ECOWAS member states. Conclusion: This study identified several approaches to increase the effectiveness of this initiative: the implementation of risk-based approaches such as use of reliance pathways; establishment of a robust information technology systems, building assessor capacity to facilitate processing and monitoring applications; and priority review of ECOWAS-MRH products.

Evaluation of Risk-Based Approaches to the Registration of Medicines: Current Status Among African Regulatory Authorities.

BACKGROUND: Despite the worldwide need for increased access to safe and effective medicines, there is a lack of innovative medicines in many low- to middle-income countries. On the African continent, this is partly due to capacity limitations of National Regulatory Authorities (NRAs). One important approach to address this issue is work sharing and regulatory reliance. Therefore, the aim of this study of regulatory authorities on the African continent was to identify which risk-based approaches are being used as well as their foreseen role in the future. METHODS: The study employed a questionnaire to identify which risk-based models are used for the regulatory approval of medicines and to determine which frameworks are in place to enable a risk-based approach, as well as to provide insight into the future direction for risk-based models. The questionnaire was sent electronically to 26 NRAs in the African Continent. RESULTS: Twenty-one authorities (80%) completed the questionnaire. Work sharing was the most commonly used model, followed closely by unilaterial reliance, information sharing, and collaborative review. These methods were perceived to be an effective and efficient use of resources, enabling faster medicine availability for patients. The unilateral reliance approach by the authorities included abridged (85%), verification (70%) and recognition (50%) models for a range of products. However, challenges included a lack of guidelines to undertake a reliance review together with resource constraints, while access to assessment reports was the most common barrier to using a unilateral reliance model. CONCLUSIONS: Many authorities in Africa have adopted a risk-based approach to medicines registration and created work sharing, unilateral reliance pathways and regionalisation models to facilitate the availability of medicines. The authorities believe that in future, assessment routes should move from stand-alone reviews to risk-based models. However, this study indicated that there would be challenges to implement this approach in practice, which would include improving resource capacity and the number of expert reviewers as well as implementing electronic tracking systems.

Regulatory performance of the East African Community joint assessment procedure: The way forward for regulatory systems strengthening.

BACKGROUND: Seven national medicines regulatory authorities in the East African Community (EAC) have embraced regulatory reliance, harmonization and work sharing through the EAC Medicines Regulatory Harmonization programme. Measuring the performance of regulatory systems provides key baseline information to build on regulatory system-strengthening strategies. Therefore, the aim of the study was to evaluate the regulatory performance of the EAC joint scientific assessment of applications approved between 2018 and 2021. METHODS: Utilising a data metrics tool, information was collected reflecting timelines for various milestones including submission to screening, scientific assessment and communication of regional recommendations for biologicals and pharmaceuticals that received a positive regional recommendation for product registration from 2018 to 2021. RESULTS: Several challenges as well as possible solutions were identified, including median overall approval times exceeding the EAC 465-day target and median times to issue marketing authorisation following EAC joint assessment recommendation that far exceeded the 116-day target. Recommendations included establishment of an integrated information management system and automation of the capture of regulatory timelines through the EAC metric tool. CONCLUSIONS: Despite initiative progress, work is required to improve the EAC joint regulatory procedure to achieve regulatory systems-strengthening and ensure patients' timely access to safe, efficacious and quality medicines.

Evaluation of the Food and Drugs Authority, Ghana Regulatory Review Process: Challenges and Opportunities.

PURPOSE: This study aimed to assess the current regulatory review process of the food and drugs authority (FDA) Ghana by identifying key milestones, target timelines, good review practices and quality decision-making practices and evaluating the overall regulatory performance from 2019 to 2021, as well as the challenges and opportunities for improvement. METHODS: The FDA Ghana representatives completed the optimising efficiencies in regulatory agencies (OpERA) questionnaire, including data identifying the milestones and overall approval times for all products registered by the FDA Ghana from 2019 to 2021. RESULTS: Of the new active substances approved from 2019 to 2021, 91% were biologicals processed by full or abridged reviews pathways. Timelines for these reviews were within authority targets but were longer compared with generics. Of generics approved from 2019 to 2021, 97% were pharmaceuticals processed by the full review pathway, with timelines within authority targets and shorter compared with new active substances. Regardless of the review model used, approval times for new active substances increased from 84 to 355 calendar days 2019-2021 due to the impact of the pandemic. Guidelines, standard operating procedures and review templates were in place and the majority of indicators for good review practices were implemented. Several quality decision-making practices were implemented, although currently there is not a systematic structured approach. CONCLUSION: The FDA Ghana monitors regulatory performance and currently meets its target timelines. To achieve World Health Organization Maturity Level 4 status, an electronic tracking system, benefit-risk assessment framework and template and the publication of assessment reports are recommended.

Assessment of the effectiveness and efficiency of the West Africa medicines regulatory harmonization initiative by the member countries.

Background: The West Africa Health Organization launched the West Africa Medicines Regulatory Harmonization Project (WA-MRH) in 2017 with the overarching objective to improve the availability of high-quality, safe and effective medicines and vaccines by the 15 countries in the Economic Community of West African States region. Although this project has made significant progress towards the realisation of its goals, challenges still remain. The aims of this study were to evaluate the effectiveness and efficiency of the WA-MRH, examine what challenges are being encountered and identify strategies that would strengthen the process for realising the initiative's goals. Methods: The Process Effectiveness and Efficiency Rating (PEER) questionnaire was used to collect data from assessors representing the seven active NMRAs in the joint assessment procedure that identified the benefits, challenges and recommendations for improving the performance of the WA-MRH project. Results: The benefits of the joint assessment procedure include time savings to manufacturers resulting from submitting one dossier and the same response package to multiple countries resulting in access to the multiple African markets within the same timeframe. Additionally, some of the NMRAs have been able to strengthen their technical capacity as a result of this initiative. Key challenges to the project include the lack of a robust information technology system that would enable dossier tracking and constraints in human resources needed to support dossier submissions and the assessment process. Conclusion: This study identified the strengths of the WA-MRH initiative as well as strategies for improvement and achievement of its objectives. The centralised submission of a dossier and its tracking is key to the regulatory assessment process. This research has demonstrated that amongst other considerations, a robust information technology system, coupled with the necessary human resource capacity would greatly enhance the effectiveness and efficiency of the WA-MRH initiative.

Evaluation of the effectiveness and efficiency of the East African community joint assessment procedure by pharmaceutical companies: Opportunities for improvement.

Background: A 2021 study to determine the viewpoints among the seven member countries regarding the effectiveness (i.e., achieving the intended outcomes) and efficiency (i.e., achieving the intended outcomes in timely manner with the resources available) of the East African Community Medicine Regulatory Harmonisation (EAC-MRH) Joint Assessment Procedure recommended the conduct of a similar study among pharmaceutical company applicants. The aim of this study then was to evaluate the effectiveness and efficiency of the current EAC-MRH operating model from the applicants' perspective, including the challenges and opportunities for improvement. Methods: Using the Process Effectiveness and Efficiency Rating for Industry questionnaire developed by the authors, data were collected from company representatives responsible for EAC joint procedure submissions. Results: Responses from 14 study participants underlined the support of pharmaceutical companies for the EAC-MRH initiative, which has facilitated the harmonisation of registration requirements across the EAC region leading to one registration for all countries and a reduction of the workload for both applicants and assessors. In addition, it is expected that shorter timelines for approval will lead to improved access to quality-assured essential medicines in the region. Access to various markets at the same time was also noted as an important benefit to pharmaceutical companies. Noted challenges include a lack of process information, a lack of centralised submission and tracking process and a lack of mandated central registration. A key strategy proposed by participants is the establishment of a regional administrative body to centrally receive and track EAC applications and the eventual establishment of a Regional EAC Medicines Authority. Conclusion: This is the first study evaluating the performance of the EAC work-sharing initiative from the point of view of the applicants. In general, the applicants believe that the system performs efficiently and fulfils its promise. However, some participants indicated that in some countries an EAC positive recommendation does not directly result in an individual country approvals. Following the recommendations listed in this report may mitigate identified areas for improvement and facilitate the overall goal of the EAC-MRH initiative to expedite the availability of needed quality-assured medicines to patients in the region.

Evaluation of the Effectiveness and Efficiency of the East African Community Joint Assessment Procedure by Member Countries: The Way Forward.

Background: For almost a decade, the East African Community has implemented the Medicines Regulatory Harmonization (EAC-MRH) programme among its member states to harmonise technical requirements and standards for medical products regulation, jointly conduct scientific review of medical product dossiers to assess safety, efficacy and quality, inspect pharmaceutical manufacturing sites and streamline decision-making processes. This initiative enables the cost-effective use of limited resources and efficient and effective delivery of regulatory services to be determined, thus instilling transparency and accountability in all stakeholders, optimising the pharmaceutical market and economic development and improving access to safe, high-quality, effective medicines in the region. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness and efficiency of the current operating model of the EAC-MRH initiative, including challenges faced and to identify opportunities for improvement. Methods: The Process Effectiveness and Efficiency Rating (PEER) questionnaire, which was used to identify the benefits, challenges, and suggestions for improving performance of EAC-MRH initiative, was completed by assessors representing seven EAC authorities in the joint assessment procedure. Semi-structured interviews were also carried out to validate the responses. Results: This initiative has been of considerable value as it moves toward achieving its main objectives of shorter timelines for approval of medicines, information sharing among regulators and capacity building for assessments, resulting in quicker access and increased availability of medicines for patients in the region. However, the key challenges identified that have hindered effectiveness and efficiency were the lack of a centralised submission and tracking system; inadequate human resources, manufacturers' failure to submit the exact same dossier to all countries of interest; lack of an integrated information management system; lack of information on national medical regulatory authority or EAC websites; and challenges in monitoring and tracking assessment reports. Conclusion: The use of a robust information technology system for the central tracking of EAC products is essential to address the identified challenges and improve regulatory effectiveness and efficiency. One central point for payment is needed to expedite the process and to ensure transparency and the availability of information on decision making on national and regional websites. Other key strategies for enhancement include improving the capacity of assessors, work and information sharing and a coordination mechanism for the regional joint assessment, with the eventual establishment of a regional medicine agency.

Evaluation of the Performance of the Gulf Cooperation Council Centralised Regulatory Review Process: Strategies to Improve Product Authorisation Efficiency and Quality.

BACKGROUND: The Gulf Centralised Committee for Drug Registration (GCC-DR), as part of the Gulf Health Council (GHC), enables the consolidated registration of pharmaceutical products throughout the member states of the Gulf Cooperation Council. OBJECTIVES: The objectives of this study were to provide an update of the performance of the GCC-DR centralised procedure; evaluate the review times for new products submitted to the GCC Centralised Registration between January 2015 and December 2020; assess the impact of applying facilitated regulatory pathways and implementing a reliance strategy; identify the strengths and weaknesses of the centralised review process; and propose strategies that could enhance the GCC regulatory review process leading to improved access to medicines for patients. METHODS: A standardised data collection template enabled the structured documentation of information collected by the Senior Regulatory Affairs and Regulatory Affairs Specialists from the Executive Board of the Health Ministers Council for GCC States to determine the GHC structure, resources, review models and milestones and timelines. The total number of applications approved was provided together with the average yearly timelines for new active substances and generics from January 2015 to December 2020 including both scientific assessment time from the agency as well as applicant response time to questions raised. Actual approval times for each product were calculated from the date of submission to the date of approval. RESULTS: The fewest (58) new products were approved in 2019 and the most (200) in 2020. The average review times for new medicines were the longest (838 calendar days) in 2015 and the shortest (321 calendar days) in 2019. Important changes recently implemented include an increase in the number of GCC-DR meetings, adoption of a standardised electronic common technical document and GCC regulatory review template, removal of authorisation dependence on pricing agreements and introduction of a reliance strategy. Additional recommendations include Executive Committee mandates for dossier review, target times for dossier validation, scientific review and Expert Committee recommendation and training for quality decision making. CONCLUSIONS: GCC procedures and decision-making processes have been positively influenced by a variety of expert reviewers, unified guidelines and the implementation of a reliance strategy. Certain barriers must still be overcome to enhance the quality of the review, and to shorten regulatory review times without compromising the scientific robustness of the review.

Pharmaceutical Industry Evaluation of the Effectiveness and Efficiency of the ZaZiBoNa Collaborative Medicines Registration Initiative: The Way Forward.

Introduction: The common technical document (CTD) format harmonised the requirements for the registration of medicines, which had traditionally differed from country to country, making it possible for countries to collaborate and conduct joint reviews of applications. One such collaborative medicines registration initiative is the Southern African Development Community ZaZiBoNa, established in 2013. A recent study was carried out with the nine active member regulatory authorities of the ZaZiBoNa to determine their views on its operational effectiveness and efficiency. Having obtained the authorities' views, the aim of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness and efficiency of the current operating model of the ZaZiBoNa initiative including the challenges it faces as well as identifying opportunities for improvement from the applicants' perspective. Methods: Applicants who had submitted registration/marketing authorisation applications for assessment under the ZaZiBoNa initiative during 2017-2021 were recruited into the study. Data was collected in 2021 using the Process, Effectiveness and Efficiency rating questionnaire (PEER-IND) developed by the authors. The questionnaire was completed by a representative responsible for ZaZiBoNa submissions in each company. Results: The pharmaceutical industry was of the view that the ZaZiBoNa initiative has achieved shorter timelines for approval of medicines, resulting in increased availability of quality-assured medicines for patients in the SADC region. Harmonisation of registration requirements and joint reviews have reduced the workload for both the pharmaceutical industry and the regulatory authorities. Some of the challenges identified were the lack of a centralised submission and tracking system, and the lack of information for applicants on the process for submission of ZaZiBoNa dossiers/applications in the individual countries, including contact details of the focal person. The establishment of a regional unit hosted in one of the member countries to centrally receive and track ZaZiBoNa dossiers/applications was identified as the best strategy for moving forward in the interim with the long-term goal being the establishment of a regional medicines authority. Conclusion: There was consensus between the pharmaceutical industry and the regulatory authorities as to the way forward to improve the effectiveness and efficiency of the ZaZiBoNa initiative. Implementation of the recommendations identified in this study will lead to enhanced regulatory performance.

Regulatory Authority Evaluation of the Effectiveness and Efficiency of the ZaZiBoNa Collaborative Medicines Registration Initiative: The Way Forward.

Introduction: ZaZiBoNa, the work-sharing initiative in the Southern African Development Community (SADC) that has been in operation for 8 years has successfully assessed over 300 dossiers/applications, with an overall median time to recommendation of 12 months. All 16 SADC countries participate in the initiative as either active or non-active members. While the successes of ZaZiBoNa are evident, some challenges still exist. The aim of this study was to solicit the views of the participating authorities on the effectiveness and efficiency of the current operating model of the ZaZiBoNa initiative. Methods: Data were collected in 2021 using the Process, Effectiveness and Efficiency Rating (PEER) questionnaire developed by the authors. The questionnaire was completed by the focal person in each country and approved by the head of the authority. Results: ZaZiBoNa serves as a platform for work sharing, information exchange, capacity building and harmonisation of registration requirements. One of the benefits to regulators has been the improvement in the capacity to conduct assessments. Manufacturers have benefited from compiling one package (modules 2-5) for the initial submission as well as a single response package to the consolidated list of questions, which saves time and resources. Respondents were of the view that patients have benefited as the ZaZiBoNa has contributed to an improved availability and accessibility to quality-assured medicines. Some of the challenges identified were the inadequacy of resources and differences in time to the implementation of ZaZiBoNa recommendations by the individual countries. The establishment of a regional unit hosted in one of the member countries to enable centralised submission and coordination was identified as the best strategy to improve the effectiveness and efficiency of the initiative in the interim, with the long-term goal being the establishment of a regional medicines authority. Conclusion: The study identified the strengths of the ZaZiBoNa initiative as well as the opportunities for improvement. The recommendations made would further strengthen this initiative.

Occam's Razor and Managing Acute Thrombosis in the COVID-19 Era.

The COVID-19 pandemic has profoundly influenced the practice of medicine in Australia over the last 24 months. Recently, the development of several vaccines to COVID-19 has been accompanied by reports of an associated rare syndrome of thrombosis and thrombocytopaenia (VITTS). The possibility of this rare disorder confronts all clinicians who deal with acute thrombosis, particularly given the prevalence of patients who have recently been immunised. However, VITTS remains rare, and we believe unnecessary focus on its potential diagnosis may distract from other more common causes of acute thrombosis. We discuss this with reference to a recent case at our institution.

A Process for Evaluating Quality Decision-Making Practices During the Development, Review and Reimbursement of Medicines.

BACKGROUND: The development of a medicine is not only underpinned by good science but also by Quality DecisionMaking Practices (QDMPs). Indeed, it is important to ensure that all organisations involved in the lifecycle of medicines are aligning their practices in decision-making to the QDMPs to ensure quality, transparent and consistent decisionmaking processes. METHODS: The aim of this study was to evaluate the practicality of QoDoS (Quality of Decision-Making Orientation Scheme) in assessing the incorporation of ten QDMPs during the development, review and reimbursement of medicines, illustrated by case studies with a pharmaceutical company, a regulatory authority and a health technology assessment (HTA) agency. Individuals from each organisation completed the 47-item QoDoS questionnaire. RESULTS: The results demonstrate the applicability of QoDoS in identifying favourable and unfavourable practices and in assessing the consistency and transparency of the QDMPs within each organisation, as well as across the different stakeholders. Furthermore, the study established the value of the methodology in raising awareness of the biases and best practices in decision-making, as well as having a basis for discussion for differences within and across stakeholders to promote consistency and alignment in decision-making. Finally, the QoDoS demonstrated the need for improvement across a number of decision-making practices for the 3 organisations such as the evaluation of alternatives and of the decision impact. CONCLUSION: The QoDoS can be used to benchmark organisations' decision-making practices to provide a basis for discussion to ultimately encourage a level of trust across and within organisations and helping to identify areas for improvement.

Comparison of the registration process of the medicines control authority of Zimbabwe with Australia, Canada, Singapore, and Switzerland: benchmarking best practices.

BACKGROUND: Benchmarking regulatory systems of low- and middle-income countries with mature systems provides an opportunity to identify gaps, enhance review quality, and reduce registration timelines, thereby improving patients' access to medicines. The aim of this study was to compare the medicines registration process of the Medicines Control Authority of Zimbabwe (MCAZ) with the regulatory processes in Australia, Canada, Singapore, and Switzerland. METHODS: A questionnaire that standardizes the review process, allowing key milestones, activities and practices of the five regulatory authorities was completed by a senior member of the divisions responsible for issuing marketing authorizations. RESULTS: The MCAZ has far fewer resources than the regulatory authorities in the comparator countries, but employs three review models, which is in line with international best practice. The MCAZ registration process is similar to the comparator countries in key milestones monitored, but differs in the target timelines for these milestones. The MCAZ is comparable to the comparator authorities in implementing the majority of good review practices, although it significantly lags behind in transparency and communication. CONCLUSION: This study identified the MCAZ strengths and opportunities for improvement, which if implemented, will enable the achievement of its vision to be a leading regulatory authority in Africa.

A Proposed Regulatory Review Model to Support the South African Health Products Regulatory Authority to Become a More Efficient and Effective Agency.

BACKGROUND: National regulatory agencies of various sizes and maturity levels, including the South African Health Products Regulatory Authority (SAHPRA), have had to revise systems and re-engineer processes in order to adapt to the new regulatory environment and increase the effectiveness of regulatory operations. This study aimed to develop a new regulatory review model for improved regulatory performance, underpinned by the parameters of the World Health Organization Global Benchmarking Tool (WHO GBT) that support strengthening of regulatory systems. METHODS: A new enhanced model for regulatory review, was developed based on the key recommendations from 6 studies, previously conducted by the authors, that were identified as fundamental elements in enhancing regulatory performance. The elements selected to define the new regulatory review model were endorsed through the integration of the parameters of the WHO GBT that, when embedded within regulatory systems, support enhanced regulatory performance. RESULTS: Opportunities for improvement in regulatory performance were identified and include quality measures; monitoring and evaluating review times; a risk-based evaluation; transparency and communication; and training and education. An improved model for the South African regulatory review and benefit-risk (BR) assessment supported by quality decision-making was proposed as well as recommendations for the application of risk-stratification strategies, strengthening of reliance networks, reinforcing good regulatory practices (GRPs) and enhancing transparency. CONCLUSION: If implemented the proposed improved regulatory model may pave the way towards more efficient and transparent, streamlined review processes, coupled with increased consistency, evidence-based decision-making practices, reduced timelines and improved patients' access to new medicines in South Africa.

Evaluation of the Good Review Practices of Countries Participating in the Southern African Development Community: Alignment and Strategies for Moving Forward.

Introduction: National medicines regulatory agencies are faced with challenges including limited resources and technical capacity, resulting in countries collaborating and sharing resources to improve efficiency of the review process to facilitate access to quality-assured medicines by their populations. One such collaboration is the Southern African Development Community (SADC) medicines registration collaborative initiative, ZaZiBoNa. Countries participate in the initiative by contributing to regulatory reviews and good manufacturing practices inspections. The aim of this study was to review and compare the registration processes of regulatory authorities of Mozambique, Namibia, South Africa, Tanzania, Zambia, and Zimbabwe to identify strategies for better alignment. Methods: A senior member of the division responsible for issuing marketing authorisations completed an established and validated questionnaire, which standardises the review process, allowing key milestones, activities and practices of the six regulatory authorities to be identified and compared. The completed questionnaires were validated by the heads of the respective agencies. Results: The six countries vary in population and in the size of their respective regulatory agency and the resources allocated to regulatory reviews. The review processes of the six agencies were similar; however, differences were noted in the milestones recorded; for example, two of the countries did not record the start of the scientific assessment. Additionally, decisions for marketing authorisation were made by an expert committee in four of the countries and by the head of the agency and the Minister of Health in two countries. All six agencies implemented the majority of good review practices; however, the need for improvement in the areas of transparency and communication and quality decision making practices was a common finding for all six countries. Conclusions: Participation in the ZaZiBoNa initiative has improved the way in which the six agencies perform regulatory reviews in their countries, highlighting the realisation of one of the key objectives of the initiative, which was building the expert capacity of member countries. Other agencies in the SADC region and beyond can use the results of this study to identify best practices, which in turn, could improve their regulatory performance.

Evaluation of the Review Models and Approval Timelines of Countries Participating in the Southern African Development Community: Alignment and Strategies for Moving Forward.

Introduction: Regulatory reliance, harmonization and work sharing have grown over the last few years, resulting in greater sharing of work and information among regulators, enabling efficient use of limited resources and preventing duplication of work. Various initiatives on the African continent include ZaZiBoNa, the Southern African Development Community (SADC) collaborative medicines registration initiative. ZaZiBoNa has resulted in great savings in time and resources; however, identified challenges include lack of clear information regarding the participating countries registration processes and requirements as well as lengthy registration times. The aim of this study, therefore, was to compare the data requirements and review models employed in the assessment of applications for registration, the target timelines for key milestones and the metrics of applications received and approved in 2019 and 2020 by Mozambique, Namibia, South Africa, Tanzania, Zambia, and Zimbabwe. Methods: A senior member of the division responsible for issuing marketing authorisations completed an established and validated questionnaire, which standardizes the review process, allowing key milestones, activities and practices of the six regulatory authorities to be identified and compared. The completed questionnaires were validated by the heads of the respective agencies. Results: The majority of applications received and approved by all six agencies in 2019 and 2020 were for generics. The mean approval times for generics varied across the countries, with ranges of 218-890 calendar days in 2019 and 158-696 calendar days in 2020. All three types of scientific assessment review models were used by the six agencies and data requirements and extent of scientific assessment were similar for five countries, while one conducted full reviews for new active substances. A large variation was observed in the targets set by the six agencies for the different milestones as well as overall approval times. Conclusions: The study identified the strengths of the countries as well as opportunities for improvement and alignment. Implementation of the recommendations made as in this study will enhance the countries' individual systems, enabling them to efficiently support the ZaZiBoNa initiative.

South African Regulatory Authority: The Impact of Reliance on the Review Process Leading to Improved Patient Access.

Background: The aims of this study were to compare the overall regulatory review timelines achieved by the South African Health Products Regulatory Authority (SAHPRA) in 2020 to the timelines historically achieved by the Medicines Control Council (MCC). This study also aimed to evaluate the regulatory review processes and the good review practices that have been implemented by SAHPRA to support the assessment of new chemical entities and generic product applications for market authorization in the business-as-usual and backlog process streams. Methods: A questionnaire was completed and verified by SAHPRA to describe the structure of the organization, the resources available, the process for regulatory review of new chemical entities and generic products and the level of implementation of good review practices and regulatory decision-making practices for market authorization. Data were collected and analyzed on the overall approval timelines for new chemical entities and generic products registered by SAHPRA in 2020 in the business-as-usual and backlog process streams. Results: A full, independent scientific review was conducted for all new chemical entities and generic product applications in the business-as-usual stream. Facilitated regulatory pathways were introduced for the review of new chemical entities and generic products in the backlog stream. As a result, the timelines for approval of applications in the backlog stream were 68% quicker for both new chemical entities and generics, using facilitated regulatory pathways, such as abridged and verification review models. Conclusion: The comparisons made through this study provided insight into the improvements that have been made through the establishment of SAHPRA and the transition in 2018 from the MCC. The re-engineered processes that have been developed and implemented by SAHPRA to address the backlog in the review of the applications for market authorization have demonstrated a decrease in the overall median approval times. The expansion of these processes into the routine review of medical products will contribute to the enhanced regulatory performance of SAHPRA and patients' access to new medicines.