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., (© 2023. The Author(s).)

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., (© 2023. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature Switzerland AG.)

Background: Multi-stakeholder interactions have evolved at product and policy levels. There is a need to assess the current and future landscape of interactions between companies, and regulatory and HTA agencies to address challenges and identify areas for improvement., Objectives: The aims of this study were to review the current interactions within and across regulatory and HTA agencies, and companies' experiences in engaging in these activities; to assess the added value of interactions as well as limitations; to explore the future ecosystem for stakeholder interactions., Method: Three separate questionnaires were developed for companies, regulators and HTA agencies, respectively, to assess their experiences and perceptions. The responses were analyzed using descriptive statistics and discussed at a multi-stakeholder workshop. Key outcomes from the surveys and workshop discussion were reported., Results: All seven regulators and seven HTA agencies in the survey indicated that they had stakeholder interactions. More formal collaboration occurred with regulators compared with HTA agencies. All nine companies have taken early advice but indicated the need for future prioritization. Success indicators can be built at the product and therapy levels, with the added value of faster patient access. Four principles were proposed for the future ecosystem: separate remit and functions between regulators and HTA; align processes; converge evidence requirements where possible; increase transparency., Conclusions: This research brought together regulators, HTA agencies, companies to examine how they interact with one another. We propose measures of value and make recommendations on future evolution to enable better evidence generation and improve regulatory and HTA decision-making.

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., (© 2022. The Author(s).)

Background: The target product profile (TPP) outlines the desired profile of a target product aimed at a particular disease and is used by companies to plan clinical development. Considering the increasing importance of health technology assessment (HTA) in informing reimbursement decisions, a robust TPP needs to be built to address HTA needs, to guide an integrated evidence generation plan that will support HTA submissions. This study assessed current practices and experiences of companies in building HTA considerations into TPP development. Methods: An opinion survey was designed and conducted in 2019, as a cross-sectional questionnaire consisting of multiple-choice questions. The questionnaire provided a qualitative assessment of companies' strategies and experiences in building HTA considerations into the TPP. Eligible survey participants were the senior management of Global HTA/Market Access Departments at 18 top international pharmaceutical companies. Results: 11 companies responded to the survey. All companies included HTA requirements in TPP development, but the timing and process varied. The key focus of HTA input related to health problems and treatment pathways, clinical efficacy/effectiveness, and safety. Variance of HTA methods and different value frameworks were identified as a challenge for development plans. Stakeholder engagement, such as HTA scientific advice, was used to pressure test the TPP. Conclusion: This research provides insight into current practice and potential opportunities for value-based drug development. It demonstrates the evolution of the TPP to encompass HTA requirements and suggests that the TPP could have a role as an iterative communication tool for use with HTA agencies to enhance an integrated evidence generation plan., Competing Interests: The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2022 Wang, McAuslane, Goettsch, Leufkens and De Bruin.)

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., (© 2022 The Author(s); Published by Kerman University of Medical Sciences. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.)

There is a growing trend for pharmaceutical companies to seek scientific advice on drug development from a Health Technology Assessment (HTA) perspective, to improve the efficiency of their studies, enable better trial design, and support the goals of positive HTA recommendation for reimbursement. This study uses information collected directly from companies on individual products to assess their strategies and practices for seeking HTA-related scientific advice in terms of which stakeholders to engage and for what purpose, when to seek scientific advice, and whether to implement that advice within global clinical development., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper., (Copyright © 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Although it cannot be expected that different medicines' regulatory agencies always reach the same review outcome, it is important that decision making is documented and communicated to ensure transparency. This study examines whether justification for divergences between the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the European Medicines Agency (EMA) regarding approved indications could be identified from the agencies' public assessment reports (PARs). We focused on 9 products previously identified to have been submitted simultaneously to both agencies with the same indication but had a different indication approved; there were 15 differences in indications. Our analysis confirms that the rationale for observed divergent indication decisions was predominantly found in the benefit-risk section of the PAR (9 of 15 cases for the FDA and 10 of 15 for the EMA). If not found in the benefit-risk section, the rationale for these decisions was found in other PAR sections (eg, labeling or clinical efficacy section) or not at all. Our study found a small number of inconsistencies or gaps in how, where, and whether regulatory decision making on approved indications are documented by the FDA and the EMA. We believe it is important for regulators to standardize their approach and systematically and transparently document their rationale for the approved indication, using a structured benefit-risk assessment format within the PAR. This process is especially important for innovative products for which experience in evaluating similar products worldwide is limited, particularly as agencies are striving to build effective regulatory processes by leveraging assessments by trusted reference agencies through approaches such as reliance. Clear and systematic communication and documentation of the decisions in the PAR are central and should continue to evolve as a best practice; an enabling step toward this would be a harmonized PAR template for use by agencies globally., (Copyright © 2021 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Despite the growing application of facilitated regulatory pathways (FRPs), little attention has focused on assessing the perception of pharmaceutical companies regarding their usefulness beyond increasing timeliness., Objectives: The aim of this study was to characterize the perceived value of four key FRPs, based on industry experiences in using these pathways. In addition, we sought to characterize the perceived impact based on benefits and barriers as well as suggested solutions for their use and recommendations as identified by companies, to outline how these FRPs may be further evolved as tools for expediting the development and regulatory review of important medicines., Methods: A study was undertaken to characterize the perceived value and impact of US FDA (i.e., Breakthrough Therapy Designation, Fast Track), European Medicines Agency (i.e., PRIME), and Japanese Pharmaceutical and Medical Devices Agency (i.e., Sakigake) FRPs through a comprehensive analysis of strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats (SWOT) as well as suggested solutions based on industry experiences with their use. The finalized survey comprised six questions and was sent to senior management in regulatory affairs departments at 22 multinational pharmaceutical companies in March 2019, with a deadline for completion by April 2019. The responses were analyzed using descriptive statistics. SWOT and free-text responses were reviewed and manually grouped into key themes according to high concordance., Results: Survey results were returned by 11 pharmaceutical companies. Based on their perceived value and positive impact, the evaluated FRPs seem to be generally recognized as helpful tools for ensuring timely development and review of important medicines while ensuring multistakeholder involvement. Respondents overwhelmingly felt that the Breakthrough Therapy Designation carried a positive influence, both within and outside their organizations. Following closely with a positive although varied perception was Sakigake, but respondents exhibited more ambivalence about Fast Track and PRIME. Companies felt the impact of the FRPs was generally positive for most stakeholders except for health technology assessors/payers, highlighting the need to better align FRPs with flexible access and reimbursement pathways to expedite the equitable availability of high-quality, safe, effective medicines., Conclusions: This study highlighted common recommendations across all four FRPs (relating to resource optimization, education, alignment, and communication to improve effective use), as well as agency-specific recommendations, some of which are already being addressed by the regulators.

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.

Background: Health technology assessment (HTA) has increased in importance in supporting payer decision making by assessing the relative effectiveness and cost effectiveness of new medicines. Thus, pharmaceutical companies need to address the HTA requirements early during development to improve reimbursement outcomes. Currently, there is a lack of research to assess the impact of HTA on development and jurisdictional outcome from companies' perspectives. This study aimed to assess companies' HTA strategy and characterise HTA practice in seven jurisdictions. Methods: A multi-year, annual study collected information for individual products, focusing on development activities regarding inclusion of HTA requirements and selection of global comparators. The generation of local contextual information, submission strategies and predictability of HTA outcomes was examined jurisdictionally in Australia, Canada, England, France, Germany, Italy and Spain. The study questionnaire was built into a secure online data collection platform and data were provided annually by participating companies. Results: Data for 169 compounds were provided by nine international companies between 2014 and 2018. HTA requirements were implemented in evidence generation plan for 63% of products during development. Global comparators were accepted by HTA bodies for more than half of studied products; Spain showed the highest acceptance rate (85%). Companies took advantages of parallel process in Australia and Canada to shorten product rollout time. Australia demonstrated general consistency in HTA review time, and England had the longest variation (interquartile range, 216 days). Requirements for additional information after submission occurred at all HTA bodies. Germany and Italy showed the highest percentage of products being reimbursed as per regulatory label (80 and 68%, respectively). Canada was the most predictable jurisdiction, with the highest proportion of review outcome (90%) that met companies' expectations. Conclusion: Companies are addressing HTA requirements during development for many products; however, they are challenged by varying requirements and practices and product success ultimately depends on how HTA organisations and payers assess added value in the context of the national healthcare systems. This ongoing study created a baseline to help capture fact-based changes for company HTA strategies and HTA body practices., Competing Interests: The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2020 Wang, McAuslane, Liberti, Gardarsdottir, Goettsch and Leufkens.)

Background: The Brazilian health regulatory agency (Agência Nacional de Vigilância Sanitária, ANVISA) has embarked on transformational initiatives to fulfill its mandate to provide timely access to safe, effective, and quality therapeutics. A new Brazilian law was enacted to provide the agency with greater flexibility. Optimizing Efficiencies in Regulatory Agencies (OpERA) is a regulatory-strengthening program that seeks to provide benchmarking data that can be used to define performance targets and focus performance improvement. The objective of this study was to use OpERA methodology to undertake a retrospective analysis of the timelines associated with important components of the ANVISA regulatory review process to establish a baseline against which the influence of the new law could be measured., Methods: The OpERA tool was used to collect specific milestone data that identify time periods, review stages, and data points for products approved by ANVISA 2013-2016., Results: For the 138 products approved in this cohort, the overall median approval time was 795 days. ANVISA and submitting companies will need to reduce their review and response times by approximately half in order to meet the total time goal of 365 days., Conclusions: The observations from this baseline study have identified opportunities for ANVISA and sponsor companies to collaborate to reduce regulatory assessment times while assuring the timely approval of safe and effective, quality medicines. These analyses will be repeated to determine how the provisions of the new Law will impact the activities of ANVISA and the extent of sponsors' contributions to this effort.

Background: Pharmaceutical companies and regulatory agencies endeavor to relate their decision making with outcomes to improve future decision making and to ensure that gained knowledge is fed back into a learning system. Nevertheless, such a correlation can only be achieved by documenting the expected outcome of a decision at the time it is made, enabling comparison of the expected outcome with the actual result., Methods: Participants at an international workshop discussed how the documentation of decisions could be evolved as companies and agencies look to improve their knowledge base. Discussions were informed by a pre-workshop survey of pharmaceutical companies and regulatory agencies., Results: Most survey participants from 12 companies (55% response rate) and 11 agencies (73% response) have a system in place to enable documentation of major decisions, however, systems are used primarily to document outcomes rather than the process, while information from documentation is not always used, and feedback loops are not in place. The majority of participants indicated that their organization currently documents most decision-making practices included in the proposed template. Workshop participants agreed that all major past decisions should be referenceable and suggested incentives to enable decisions to be referenced, and confirmed elements and characteristics of a decision-documentation template., Conclusions: This survey and workshop identified the current landscape and gaps in the documentation of decision making and suggested revisions for a proposed documentation template. The use of technology to enable information extraction with support from artificial intelligence and future decision making was a recommendation highlighted by participants.

Objectives: The objectives of the study were to establish a benchmarking tool to collect metrics to enable increased clarity regarding the differences and similarities across health technology assessment (HTA) agencies, to assess performance within and across HTA agencies, identify areas in the HTA processes in which time is spent and to enable ongoing performance improvement., Methods: Common steps and milestones in the HTA process were identified for meaningful benchmarking among agencies. A benchmarking tool consisting of eighty-six questions providing information on HTA agency organizational aspects and information on individual new medicine review timelines and outcomes was developed with the input of HTA agencies and validated in a pilot study. Data on 109 HTA reviews from five HTA agencies were analyzed to demonstrate the utility of this tool., Results: This study developed an HTA benchmarking methodology, comparative metrics showed considerable differences among the median timelines from assessment and appraisal to final HTA recommendation for the five agencies included in this analysis; these results were interpreted in conjunction with agency characteristics., Conclusions: It is feasible to find consensus among HTA agencies regarding the common milestones of the review process to map jurisdiction-specific processes against agreed metrics. Data on characteristics of agencies such as their scope and remit enabled results to be interpreted in the appropriate local context. This benchmarking tool has promising potential utility to improve the transparency of the review process and to facilitate both quality assurance and performance improvement in HTA agencies.

Background: The Caribbean Regulatory System is a centralized medicine assessment procedure established to serve the needs of the Member States of the CARICOM region. In order to better understand the effectiveness and efficiency of the processes implemented by the Caribbean Regulatory System for the regulatory assessment of medicines for the region, the system has been participating in the Optimizing Efficiencies in Regulatory Agencies (OpERA) program, a multinational endeavor to characterize the assessment procedures and the corollary metrics associated with medicine review activities in regulatory agencies and regional regulatory initiatives., Methods: The OpERA tool was used to collect process and specific milestone data for products approved by the Caribbean Regulatory System during 2017 ( n = 10) and 2018 ( n = 11)., Results: The median total approval time was 57.5 days (25th/75th percentiles: 54, 60) in 2017 and 148 days (120, 163) in 2018. The median time to conduct the scientific assessment of the dossier was 37 days (24, 42) in 2017 and 66 (40, 132) days in 2018, within the target of 90 days for this activity. The time increases observed in 2018 were due to staff manpower limitations that reduced the ability of the system to conduct the timely assessment of applications. Based on these observations, recommendations to optimize the effectiveness and efficiency of the Caribbean Regulatory System include a commitment from Member States and partner organizations to the use of the procedure to accelerate product availability, encouraging the use of the Caribbean Regulatory System for non-generic products approved by a reference agency, ensuring the establishment of policy and legal frameworks to facilitate the rapid uptake of Caribbean Regulatory System registrations as marketing authorizations in the Member States, and maintaining the sustainability of the process through a fee-based approach., Conclusions: The observations obtained using the OpERA methodology indicate the Caribbean Regulatory System is an effective and efficient mechanism to provide recommendations to Member States for important medicines., Competing Interests: Competing interestsThe authors declare that they have no competing interests., (© The Author(s) 2020.)

Background: This study sought to identify criteria and current practices for implementing an abridged review process and understanding barriers and enablers in utilizing reliance models and to offer recommendations for the implementation of an abridged review process in South Africa based on good reliance practices (GRelP)., Methods: A questionnaire was completed by six national regulatory authorities (NRAs) to determine criteria and current practices for implementing an abridged review process. In addition, two focus group discussions were conducted on the practical implementation of an abridged review process based on GRelP., Results: Participating NRAs indicated that reliance would be placed on one reference agency. Applications submitted to NRAs for an abridged review had to be identical to those submitted to the reference agency. Unredacted reference agency assessment reports would be required to facilitate the abridged review process. A full technical dossier would also be required, but only parts would be assessed during the abridged review. Focus groups indicated that abridged review elements had been identified and should be considered in implementing GRelP., Conclusions: NRAs strive to improve regulatory performance and accelerate approval times; however, many continue to face challenges due to resource constraints. Increasing workloads, advancing technologies, and limited expertise require NRAs to leverage regulatory convergence initiatives, collaborative registration procedures, and functional regional, continental and international networks to fulfil regulatory mandates. Recommendations for the implementation of an abridged review process and a framework for GRelP have been made with a view to optimise regulatory review processes in South Africa.

Introduction: The National Pharmaceutical Regulatory Agency (NPRA) embarked on a regulatory-strengthening program and is evaluating its processes. Optimising Efficiencies in Regulatory Agencies (OpERA) is a regulatory-strengthening program that provides benchmarking data that can define performance targets and focus performance improvement. The objective of this study was to use OpERA methodology to determine where time is spent in the NPRA approval process and to form a baseline to measure the performance improvements., Methods: The OpERA tool was used to collect specific milestone data that identify time periods, review stages, and data points for new active substances and biosimilars approved by NPRA in 2017., Results: In 2017, 25 new active substances and 1 biosimilar were approved by NPRA in a median of 515 days, representing both agency and applicant time. The median time between dossier receipt and the initiation of NPRA scientific assessment was 135 days, but there was a wide variation in queuing time. The median total assessment time was 279 days (agency and applicant timing). NPRA took a median of 166 days; applicants took a median of 131 days to respond to deficiency questions, with up to 6 cycles of review required for approval and 65% of applications requiring 4-5 cycles to provide satisfactory responses., Conclusions: As a result of these data, NPRA proposes three improvements: target start for scientific assessment 100 days after file acceptance, a maximum of 5 review cycles, and applicant response time limited to 6 months. These results will serve as a baseline for further assessment.

Background: To evaluate the quality of the decision-making processes of pharmaceutical companies during medicines development for evidence generation to support reimbursement of new medicines and the appraisal recommendation decision-making process by health technology assessment (HTA) agencies., Methods: Two questionnaires were developed and subsequently piloted for the purpose of content validation. These were sent to 24 pharmaceutical companies and 16 HTA agencies., Results: Responses were obtained from 11 companies and 11 HTA agencies. Some similarities were identified between the decision-making processes of companies and agencies, such as the use of committees, having a primarily mixed (qualitative/quantitative) internal decisionmaking system, as well as the lack of systematic assessments of quality decision making and the relatively infrequent use of formal decision-making frameworks. Nevertheless, the results indicate differences as companies and agencies use diverse processes to arrive at the final decision either through consensus, majority vote, or an individual making the decision. The majority of companies and agencies believe that the quality of decision making can and should be measured. Moreover, organizations considered the occurrence of biases within their organization as pertinent. Finally, almost all the participants felt that there was room for improvement for their organization's quality of decision making., Conclusion: These findings are consistent with a published study on regulatory processes and support the need for more consistent and predictable decision-making processes during the life cycle of medicines. This could be achieved through capacity building, systematically evaluating the quality of decision making, and encouraging utilization of formal decision-making frameworks within companies and agencies.

Background: As regulatory agencies come under increased pressure to review medicines of critical importance through efficient regulatory systems to provide equitable access, the benefits of using expedited review pathways are being explored. These facilitated regulatory pathways (FRPs) provide a variety of review strategies that can also expedite assessments. Stringent regulatory authorities (SRAs) use primary FRPs to accelerate development or to shorten review time. Some emerging national regulatory authorities can implement primary FRPs but are more likely to use secondary FRPs that rely on or recognize an SRA or reference agency decision, the World Health Organization Collaborative Prequalification of Medicines Programme, "altruistic" reviews, or collaborative work sharing. Despite their availability, there are no formal guidelines or consensus for the definition, basic elements, or best practices for FRPs., Methods: Herein, we present a 4-step pragmatic approach to a framework designed to help agencies determine how best to use FRPs. Each step is based on characteristics identified through research, surveys, literature assessments, regulatory capacity categorization analyses, and practical experience., Results: Step 1 assesses 4 domains of the environment preparedness, step 2 offers process criteria that should be in place to effectively use an FRP, step 3 tiers agencies through a self-assessment of readiness and capacity, and step 4 provides a pathway for agencies to determine the most relevant FRP for their use. Target timelines are proposed for FRPs., Conclusions: This framework represents the first endeavor to holistically address the multifaceted aspects that should be considered for the effective use of an FRP.

Objective: To compare review outcome alignment between European Medicines Agency (EMA) and US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for medicines approved by both agencies in the time period 2014-2016., Design: Using publicly available information from FDA and EMA websites, new active substances (NASs) approved by each agency from 2014 to 2016 were identified and their characteristics assessed. Divergences in regulatory outcomes for simultaneous (within 91 days) submissions to both agencies were identified and then examined for use of facilitated regulatory pathways and orphan designations; submitted versus approved indications; and approval times., Results: In 2014-2016, 115 NASs were approved by EMA or FDA or both; 74/115 were new chemical entities and 41 new biological/biotechnology entities; 82/115 were approved by both agencies, 24 only by FDA and nine only by EMA. Simultaneous submission occurred for 52/115; 13/52 received expedited review by both agencies and 18 only by FDA; 8/52 received conditional approval from both agencies, 2/52 only from FDA and 1/52 only from EMA; 17/52 were designated as orphans by both agencies and 10/52 by FDA only; 31/52 indications were approved as submitted and 21 changed by EMA and 29/46 were approved as submitted (six not assessed) and 17/46 changed by FDA. Median FDA review timelines were 319 days compared with 409 days for EMA., Conclusions: There was general agreement in EMA / FDA conditional approvals. FDA used expedited pathways and orphan designation more often than EMA, suggesting stricter EMA criteria or definitions for these designations or less flexible processes. Despite consistency in submitted indications, there was lack of concordance in approved indications, which should be further investigated. FDA review times are faster because of a wider range of expedited pathways and the two-step EMA process; this may change with recent revisions to EMA accelerated assessment guidelines and the launch of Priority Medicines., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2019. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

There is a growing interest in aligning accelerated regulatory pathways with flexible access and reimbursement pathways to expedite the equitable availability of high-quality, safe, and effective medicines that provide a value-based approach to meeting society's most important healthcare needs. The Centre for Innovation in Regulatory Science (CIRS) identified key issues regarding the confluence of regulatory and health technology assessment processes from discussions and presentations given by international regulators, health technology assessment bodies, payers, patient representatives, and multinational pharmaceutical company representatives on this topic at CIRS workshops held in 2014 and 2017 that focused on the commonalties and differences across these pathways. Recent publications have also been highlighted. The barriers to and opportunities for aligning stakeholder expectations and needs were investigated and recommendations provided. Early dialogue among the stakeholders is the process that will likely provide the greatest return on investment of time and effort to identify, develop, review, and recommend important new medicines, especially those that address an unmet medical need., (© 2019 The Authors Clinical Pharmacology & Therapeutics © 2019 American Society for Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics.)

Introduction: The Quality of Decision-Making Orientation Scheme (QoDoS) was developed to provide organisations involved in submission, approval and reimbursement of new medicines with a tool to improve the quality of their decision-making processes and is considered the most promising tool for such purpose. This study aimed to further establish the measurement properties of the QoDoS by evaluating its reliability (internal consistency and test-retest reliability) and relevance in the target population. Methods: The study participants consisted of 55 individuals recruited from pharmaceutical companies, regulatory and HTA agencies. It was designed as a longitudinal study with participants assessed on two different occasions, at baseline (test 1) and then 7 days later (test 2). Internal consistency reliability was assessed with Cronbach's alpha and the test-retest reliability was evaluated using the intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) based on absolute agreement, 2 way mixed-effects model for the four QoDoS domains. The relevance of the QoDoS was evaluated by applying cognitive debriefing using five short feedback questions following test 1. Results: Test 1 was completed by 44 study participants (80% response rate) and test 2 was completed by 32 of the 44 individuals, resulting in a 73% response rate. Cronbach's alpha coefficient was greater than 0.7 across all the domains for test 1 and test 2, ranging from 0.71 to 0.79, indicating good consistency of responses. For the overall score across all 47 items, the Cronbach's alpha coefficient was 0.81 for test 1 and 0.86 for test 2, which is rated as very good. The four QoDoS domains showed moderate to strong reproducibility (ICC range: 0.63-0.86). The outcome of the cognitive debriefing from the 43 respondents (98% response rate) confirmed the relevance (95% agreement), language clarity (95%) and completeness of items (86%); the clarity of the scaling (91%) as well as spontaneity of responses (95%). Conclusion: These results provide strong support for the relevance and reliability of the QoDoS, which are key properties for future longitudinal and cross-sectional applications of the instrument when evaluating quality of decision making by those involved in the lifecycle of medicines.

Objectives: To evaluate the current practice of companies and agencies to assess the changes made in aligning regulatory and health technology assessment (HTA) stakeholders; to identify areas of commonality of evidentiary requirements that could occur; and to identify strategic issues and trends of regulatory and HTA synergy., Methods: Two separate questionnaires were developed to assess stakeholders' perceptions on regulatory and HTA alignment, one for pharmaceutical companies and the other for regulatory and HTA agencies. The responses were analyzed using descriptive statistics., Results: Seven regulatory and 8 HTA agencies from Australia, Canada, and Europe and 19 international companies developing innovative medicine responded to the survey. This study provided a snapshot of the current regulatory and HTA landscape. Changes made over the past 5 years were reflected in three main areas: there is an increasing interaction between regulatory and HTA agencies; current conditional regulatory approvals are not always linked with flexible HTA approaches; and companies are more supportive of joint scientific advice. Four types of evidentiary requirements were identified as building blocks for better alignment: acceptable primary end points, inclusion of an active comparator, use of patient-reported outcomes, and choice and use of surrogate end point., Conclusions: The study showed that the gap between regulatory and HTA requirements has narrowed over the past 5 years. All respondents supported synergy between regulatory and HTA stakeholders, and the study provided several recommendations on how to further improve evidentiary alignment including the provision of joint scientific advice, which was rated as a key strategy by both agencies and companies., (Copyright © 2018 International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research (ISPOR). Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: In 2008, a consortium of 4 regulatory authorities, the Australian Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA), Health Canada, Swissmedic, and Singapore Health Sciences Authority (HSA) approached the Centre for Innovation in Regulatory Science (CIRS) to support the development of a benefit-risk framework and template that could be used by all 4 authorities and that would enable joint and shared reviews to maximize resources. CIRS facilitated this collaboration, the Consortium on Benefit-Risk Assessment (COBRA), between 2008 and 2013., Methods: COBRA developed a benefit-risk assessment template based on the EMA reflection paper of 2008, which was constructed and then evaluated in 3 phases: a feasibility study, a retrospective pilot study, and a prospective study. The final template corresponded to the Universal Methodology for Benefit-Risk Assessment (UMBRA) developed by CIRS., Results: By 2014, elements of the template, which had been developed during the program of work, aided the authorities in documenting the benefit-risk assessment of medicines in a systematic and structured way. However, its role in the individual authority's assessment toolkit was influenced by the number of key elements within the template that were already included in their current clinical assessment templates. Notably, the agencies indicated that they will modify their clinical assessment templates to align with the UMBRA 8-step framework approach., Conclusions: Overall, the authorities believed that the project had given them a better understanding of the value of using a structured approach to the benefit-risk assessment of medicines as well as enabling shared learnings between the authorities.

There is growing interest in characterising factors associated with positive regulatory outcomes for drug marketing authorisations. We assessed empirical studies published over the past 15 years seeking to identify predictive factors. Factors were classified to one of four 'factor clusters': evidentiary support; product or indication characteristics; company experience or strategy; social and regulatory factors. We observed a heterogeneous mix of technical factors (e.g., study designs, clinical evidence of efficacy) and less studied social factors (e.g., company-regulator interactions). We confirmed factors known to be of relevance to drug approval decisions (imperative) and a cohort of less understood (compensatory) social factors. Having robust supportive clinical evidence, addressing rare or serious illness, following scientific advice and prior company experience were associated with positive outcomes, which illustrated the multifactorial nature of regulatory decision making and factors need to be considered holistically while having varying, context-dependent importance., (Copyright © 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: Although pharmaceutical companies, regulatory authorities, and health technology assessment (HTA) agencies have been increasingly using decision-making frameworks, it is not certain whether these enable better quality decision making. This could be addressed by formally evaluating the quality of decision-making process within those organizations. The aim of this literature review was to identify current techniques (tools, questionnaires, surveys, and studies) for measuring the quality of the decision-making process across the three stakeholders. Methods: Using MEDLINE, Web of Knowledge, and other Internet-based search engines, a literature review was performed to systematically identify techniques for assessing quality of decision making in medicines development, regulatory review, and HTA. A structured search was applied using key words and a secondary review was carried out. In addition, the measurement properties of each technique were assessed and compared. Ten Quality Decision-Making Practices (QDMPs) developed previously were then used as a framework for the evaluation of techniques identified in the review. Due to the variation in studies identified, meta-analysis was inappropriate. Results: This review identified 13 techniques, where 7 were developed specifically to assess decision making in medicines' development, regulatory review, or HTA; 2 examined corporate decision making, and 4 general decision making. Regarding how closely each technique conformed to the 10 QDMPs, the 13 techniques assessed a median of 6 QDMPs, with a mode of 3 QDMPs. Only 2 techniques evaluated all 10 QDMPs, namely the Organizational IQ and the Quality of Decision Making Orientation Scheme (QoDoS), of which only one technique, QoDoS could be applied to assess decision making of both individuals and organizations, and it possessed generalizability to capture issues relevant to companies as well as regulatory authorities. Conclusion: This review confirmed a general paucity of research in this area, particularly regarding the development and systematic application of techniques for evaluating quality decision making, with no consensus around a gold standard. This review has identified QoDoS as the most promising available technique for assessing decision making in the lifecycle of medicines and the next steps would be to further test its validity, sensitivity, and reliability.

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has four facilitated regulatory pathways (FRPs): Fast Track (FT), Breakthrough Therapy (BTD), Priority Review (PR), and Accelerated Approval (AA). Only PR specifies an expedited review timeline (6 months). We sought to determine to what extent the combination of two or more FRPs influenced development and approval times. We developed a "metro map" to illustrate FRP elements and their influence on review times. We assessed 125 new active substances (approved January 2013 to December 2015) 74 of which used one or more FRPs. For these 74, development times ranged from 1,458 (BTD + PR + AA) to 3,515 days (PR). PR alone had a median approval time of 242 days. The most common combination was FT + PR (median approval 292 days, n = 21). The fastest approval times were for PR + FT + BTD + AA (145 days) and PR + BTD + AA (166 days). Our findings support the combination of FRPs for shortening development and review times beyond that provided by PR alone.

Background: Although the quality of decision making (QDM) in the development and regulatory review of medicines influences the delivery of new products, there appears to be no suitable instrument to assess QDM in this area. The aim of this study was to assess differences in QDM using a validated instrument, the Quality of Decision-Making Orientation Scheme (QoDoS), to identify best practices and biases affecting individuals and their organization, as well as to assess differences in decision-making behaviors between pharmaceutical companies and regulatory agencies. QoDoS also enables the measurement against 10 quality decision-making practices (QDMPs) that underpin a quality process., Methods: QoDoS, consisting of 47 items that assess individual and organizational decision-making approaches and influences, was completed by 76 participants from regulatory agencies and pharmaceutical companies., Results: Having a systematic, structured approach to aid in decision making is achieved to a greater extent at an individual level (72%) compared with that of the organization (38%). Key differences between company and agency decision making were uncovered. While it was recognized that both stakeholders felt that their decision making could be improved (100% agencies; 92% companies), training in the science of decision making was rarely provided., Conclusions: QoDoS has the ability to measure differences in QDM between individuals and organizations within companies and agencies. The benefits of assessing QDMPs with QoDoS include enabling an increased awareness of biases and best practices that should be incorporated into a decision-making framework; increasing productivity and reducing uncertainty around decision making, thereby resulting in more predictable outcomes for organizations. In addition, it provides a basis for discussion of the issues in decision making within an organization as well as between stakeholders to encourage a level of partnership. Finally, measurements of QDM will enable trust, consistency, transparency, and timeliness to be built into critical decisions that affect medicines' availability.

Objectives: The objective of this study is to illustrate and provide a better understanding of the role of health technology assessment (HTA) processes in decision making for drug reimbursement in Poland and how this approach could be considered by other countries of limited resources., Methods: We analyzed the evolution of the HTA system and processes in Poland over the past decade and current developments based on publicly available information., Results: The role of HTA in drug-reimbursement process in Poland has increased substantially over the recent decade, starting in 2005 with the formation the Agency for Health Technology Assessment and Tariff System (AOTMiT). The key success factors in this development were effective capacity building based on the use of international expertise, the implementation of transparent criteria into the drug reimbursement processes, and the selective approach to the adoption of innovative medicines based on the cost-effectiveness threshold among other criteria., Conclusions: While Poland is regarded as a leader in Central and Eastern Europe, there is room for improvement, especially with regard to the quality of HTA processes and the consistency of HTA guidelines with reimbursement law. In the "pragmatic" HTA model use by AOTMiT, the pharmaceutical company is responsible for the preparation of a reimbursement dossier of good quality in line with HTA guidelines while the assessment team in AOTMiT is responsible for critical review of that dossier. Adoption of this model may be considered by other countries with limited resources to balance differing priorities and ensure transparent and objective access to medicines for patients who need them.

Background: This study compared the timing, regulatory marketing authorization decisions, and the final labeling for products submitted to Swissmedic to those submitted to European Medicines Agency (EMA) and the US Food & Drug Administration (FDA)., Methods: The Centre for Innovation in Regulatory Science (CIRS) conducted an analysis of a representative cohort of 63 new molecular entities (NMEs) that were submitted to Swissmedic from 2006 through 2010 and that were also submitted to, and approved by, the EMA centralized procedure and FDA. Parameters considered included the outcome and timing of regulatory marketing authorization decisions and the comparison of each product's Summary of Product Characteristics (SPC) from the 3 agencies. The results were presented at the Swissmedic 10th Anniversary Symposium, "The Challenges of Regulation and Changing Regulations Paradigms," and they form the basis of this article., Results: The median approval times for these NMEs were longer for Swissmedic (480 days) compared with FDA (303 days) and EMA (416 days). However, if an expedited application review procedure (a "priority review" [FDA], "accelerated assessment" [EMA], or "accelerated review" [Swissmedic]) was applied, Swissmedic was faster (207 days) than EMA (300 days) and essentially as fast as FDA (229 days). The main differences were in the nature of the wording of parts of the initial SPC, particularly the "Contraindications" and "Special warnings and precautions" for FDA and "Special warnings and precautions" for EMA., Conclusions: Results suggest there is no clear evidence that Swissmedic was substantially different in its initial regulatory decisions or SPC recommendations compared with the EMA or FDA.

Objectives: We assessed the characteristics of currently implemented expedited (facilitated) regulatory pathways (FRPs) used by national regulatory authorities (NRAs) in emerging economies to speed access to important new medicines., Methods: We identified NRAs with FRPs through Thomson Reuters Cortellis Regulatory Intelligence and through agency Websites. We developed a list of 27 FRP characteristics. We categorised characteristics as procedural or substantive and based them on five sequential regulatory activities., Findings: We assessed 29 countries with 33 FRPs. The regions with the characteristics described most extensively by their FRPs were the Middle East/North Africa and Eastern Europe. The Sub-Saharan African region included the FRPs that were least specific in describing characteristics. Overall, FRPs presented at least twice as many procedural as substantive characteristics., Conclusions: We observed diversity by region in FRP characteristics, suggesting a role for further engagement with emerging NRAs in their design and implementation. Common processes could advance regulatory alignment initiatives and help the WHO inform the development of novel, globally aligned accelerated development and regulatory pathways for products that fulfil serious unmet public health needs.Journal of Public Health Policy advance online publication, 10 March 2016; doi:10.1057/jphp.2016.8.

Background: The science of decision making is well established, although in reality it is a mixture of science and art. What is currently lacking is research into decision making in medicines research and development. The aims of this study were to determine the current decision-making practices and methodologies for measuring the quality of the decision making and the barriers and solutions for making quality decisions within pharmaceutical companies and regulatory agencies., Methods: Two analogous questionnaires were developed for use in this study. Fourteen agencies and 25 companies were asked to complete the questionnaire, assessing their decision making for submitting or approving a new drug application., Results: The 68% and 71% response rate from companies and agencies, respectively, suggests interest in this topic, but the area is largely unexplored within the pharmaceutical environment. Moreover, all companies and 90% of the agencies believed that decision making at their organizations could be improved. Although both stakeholders have, to some extent, already implemented frameworks and various methodologies, these are often informal and unsystematic. Challenges remain and there is a need to change the organizational culture by increasing the awareness of the quality aspect in decision making., Conclusions: The findings of this study support the need to further characterize and assess the practices and behaviors of individuals and organizations. Furthermore, the barriers, mainly relating to the influence of biases, should be addressed by developing the general principles of a formal quality decision framework and identifying quality decision-making practices in order to ensure that structured decisions are made throughout the life cycle of medicines.

A universal framework for the evaluation of the benefit-risk assessment of medicines during development by pharmaceutical companies and in the regulatory review by regulatory authorities is considered of value, as it would result in the systematic structured approach to support transparency in decision making. Several organizations have developed frameworks over the past few years, including those recommended by pharmaceutical companies such as the PhRMA BRAT (Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America Benefit-Risk Action Team) and the BRAIN (Benefit-Risk Assessment in New and Old Drugs) as well as frameworks advanced by regulatory agencies, including the FDA 5-step framework and the EMA PrOACT-URL. However, a review of the criteria-including logical soundness, comprehensiveness, acceptability of results, practicality, specificity and sensitivity, presentation (visualization), and scope proposed for the development of a universal framework-demonstrated that all these different frameworks described can be incorporated into UMBRA (Universal Methodology for Benefit-Risk Assessment).