Search

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The certificate of pharmaceutical product (CPP) was implemented to accelerate the availability of new drugs in developing countries by providing evidence of the quality of products and reducing the time to market through reliance on a prior trusted analysis. However, the CPP format, issuing process and use have not been revised since 1997 and there are significant differences among countries in regard to requirements for CPP timing, terminology, and format. We sought to determine current CPP practices versus national regulatory guidelines and to inform recommendations for the efficient use of the CPP based on the needs of the modern regulatory environment. Methods: We conducted a comparative analysis of company practice versus agency guidelines across 18 maturing pharmaceutical markets using data from the Cortellis for Regulatory Intelligence® (CRI) and the Centre for Innovation in Regulatory Science (CIRS) Emerging Markets Regulatory Review Times (EMaRReT) databases and regulatory authorities' websites. Results: Of the studied 18 countries, 16 require the CPP for submission of new registrations; many accept alternative documentation but most still require legalization of the CPP and many are not compliant with the complex CPP format. Additional complicating factors include language requirements and varying local guidelines for CPP submission timing and validity dates. Conclusions: With the implementation of a number of suggested improvements, the CPP can continue to serve an important role in streamlining regulatory efficiency and provide confidence in new medicines, ensuring a more efficient and effective approval process and expediting patient access to safe and effective medicines worldwide. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]