Search

Objective This study compares the current regulatory review process and good review practices at the Saudi Food and Drug Authority (SFDA) with those of regulatory agencies in Australia, Canada, and Singapore and identifies opportunities for developing the SFDA as a Regional Centre of Excellence. Methods A questionnaire completed by the SFDA included data regarding the organisation, key milestones, review timelines, and good review practices of the agency. Similar information was obtained within the same timeframe (2014/2015) through the same standard questionnaire regarding the processes and practices for Health Canada, Singapore’s Health Sciences Authority, and Australia’s Therapeutic Goods Administration. Results All four regulatory agencies have established target times for scientific assessment and regulatory review, examine dossier sections in parallel, and separate company response time from overall timing. Additionally, all four agencies have instituted good review practices including standard operating procedures, templates, dossier monitoring, and continuous improvement processes, and assign a high priority to transparency in their relationships with the public, healthcare professionals and industry. Of the four agencies, however, only the SFDA requires a Certificate of Pharmaceutical Product (CPP) at the time of the submission and pricing negotiations before final product approval. Conclusions To assist the SFDA in its efforts to become a Regional Centre of Excellence, it is suggested that the agency explore a risk stratification approach to select dossiers for verification, abridged, or full reviews; use forms of certification other than the CPP; make pricing negotiations independent to the review process; and introduce a feedback process for the quality of the dossier.

This study sought to assess the current regulatory review process in Saudi Arabia, identify the key milestones, evaluate the measures used for Good Review Practices (GRevP) and to suggest opportunities for an enhanced regulatory review of medicines. A questionnaire completed by the Saudi Food and Drug Authority (SFDA) was divided into three parts: Organisation of the Agency, Key Milestones and Timelines and GRevP. Currently the SFDA carries out a full assessment for the review of all major applications, although they currently lack the expertise to evaluate the preclinical portion of the product file. A Certificate of Pharmaceutical Product (CPP) is required at the time of registration and a pricing agreement internally must be developed before authorisation. Applications may have to wait 2–6 months before review, although priority products are taken out of the queuing system. The median review times for new active substances from submission to approval were 340 working days (2011) and 372 working days (2013); however, the target time was 290 working days. Standard operating procedures (SOPs), review templates and an electronic submission tracking system are in place, but the GRevP framework is still evolving. Based on the available resources and capabilities, the SFDA is unable currently to meet its overall target timelines, partly due to the sponsor’s time in responding to agency questions. Therefore, it either needs to increase its resources or to implement a risk stratification system based on the Singapore model, which takes into account reviews by reference agencies. The SFDA is encouraged to develop GRevP guidelines to ensure the quality of the review.