Dataset Information

Industrial perceptions of medicines regulatory harmonization in the East African Community.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Medicines regulatory harmonization has been recommended as one way to improve access to quality-assured medicines in low- and middle-income countries. The rationale is that by lowering barriers to entry more manufacturers will be enticed to enter the market, while the capacity at the national medicines regulatory authorities is strengthened. The African Medicines Regulatory Harmonization Initiative, agreed in 2009, is developing regional platforms with harmonized regulatory procedures for the registration of medicines. The first region to implement medicines regulatory harmonization was the East African Community (EAC). The harmonization was based on the existing EAC Free Trade Agreement, which officially launched the free movement of goods and services in 2010.

Methods and findings

In this study we conducted semi-structured interviews and performed document reviews. The main target group for our interviews was pharmaceutical companies. We interviewed 18 companies, including 64% of the total companies who had experienced the EAC joint product assessment procedure, and two EAC-based national medicines regulatory authorities. We found that generally pharmaceutical companies are supportive of the African-based MRH efforts and appreciative of the progress being achieved. However, many companies are now hesitant to use the joint product assessment procedure until efficiency improvements are made. Common frustrations were the length of time to receive the actual marketing authorization; unexpectedly higher quality standards than national procedures; and challenges in getting all EAC countries to recognize EAC approvals. Smaller, less attractive markets have not yet become more attractive from a corporate perspective, and there is no free trade of pharmaceuticals in the EAC region.

Conclusions

Pharmaceutical companies agree that medicines regulatory harmonization is the way forward. However, regulatory medicines harmonization must actually result in quicker access to the harmonized markets for quality-assured medicines. At this time, improvements are required to the current EAC processes to meet the vision of harmonization.

SUBMITTER: Dansie LS

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6583972 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:IntroductionAdequate and sustainable funding of national medicine regulatory agencies (NMRAs) is key for assurance of quality, safety and efficacy of medical products circulating in a market. The study aimed to determine factors affecting NMRAs funding in five East African Community (EAC) countries namely: Burundi, Kenya, Rwanda, Tanzania (Mainland and Zanzibar) and Uganda.MethodologyAn exploratory, mixed method design using both qualitative and quantitative data, was employed. Data from six NMRAs was collected through a combination of semi-structured interviews, questionnaires, and checklists for the period 2011/12-2014/15 while 2010/11 data served as baseline. Interviews were conducted with heads of NMRAs and monitoring and evaluation experts of the respective agencies. NMRA's financing was assessed using six indicators namely, funding policy, financial autonomy, the total annual budget, actual funding per annum, funds received from various sources, and the NMRA expenditure.ResultsThe average total annual budget for all the EAC countries during the study period 2011-2015 ranged from USD 824,328.67 to USD 10,724,536.50. The low budget in Zanzibar may be attributed to population and pharmaceutical market size. Uganda's attainment of 98.75% (USD 10,656,704) revenue from industry fees is a result of deliberate government policy change from 100% reliance on donor funding over a period of 10 years (1995-2015). On average, the proportion of revenue against budget per annum is 54.8% (USD 458,970.11), 98.7% (USD 10,302,295.25) and 100% (USD 7,375,802.08) for Zanzibar Food & Drugs Agency (ZFDA), Uganda National Drug Authority (NDA) and Tanzania Medicines and Medical Devices Authority (TMDA) respectively. Governments, industry fees and donors are the major sources of funding across all NMRAs in the EAC region, with TMDA and Uganda NDA relying more on industry fees by 73.20% (USD 4,664,777.59) and 98.25% (USD 8,077,238.20) respectively. While Burundi relies solely on government funding, ZFDA, on the other hand, received on average 50.40% (USD 252,557.22) from government and 40.60% (USD 165,303.34) from industry fees and the remaining 9% from donors and other sources. An overall contribution of funds received from donors by each NMRA was the least among other sources of financing. Observation of expenditure patterns indicated operational costs to be the major expense in the majority of the NMRAs, followed by salaries and infrastructure development. The Kenya NMRA has the highest degree of average expenditure across all three categories, with the least average expenditures being marked by Burundi NMRA. The operational costs on average increased considerably in all the NMRAs during the study period.ConclusionEvidence from the EAC suggests that government and industry fees are the main sources of funding while donor contributions vary from country to country. Government policy, legal framework, and fees structure are the key enablers of NMRAs funding sustainability.

Project description: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.

Project description:The WHO Model List of Essential Medicines (MLEM) has since 1977 helped prioritize and ensure availability of medicines especially in low- and middle-income countries. The MLEM consists mainly of generic medicines, though recent trends point towards listing expensive on-patent medicines and increasing global support for medicines against non-communicable diseases. However, the implications of such changes for national essential medicines list (NEML) updates for access to essential medicines has received relatively little attention. This study examined how government agencies and other actors in Kenya, Uganda and Tanzania participate in and influence the NEML update process and subsequent availability of prioritized medicines; and the alignment of these processes to WHO guidance. A mixed study design was used, with qualitative documentary review, key informant interviews and thematic data analysis. Results show that NEML updating processes were similar amongst the three countries and aligned to WHO guidelines, albeit conducted irregularly, with tendency to reprioritization during procurement stages, and were not always accompanied by revision of clinical guidelines. Variations were noted in the inclusion of medicines against cancer and hepatitis C, and the utilization of health technology assessment (HTA). For medicines against diseases with high global engagement, such as HIV/AIDS and TB, national stakeholders had more limited inputs in prioritization and funding. Furthermore, national actors were not influenced by the pharmaceutical industry during the NEML update process, nor were any conflicting agendas identified between health, trade and industrial policies. Hence, the study suggests that more attention should be paid to the combination of HTAs and NEMLs, particularly as countries work towards universal health coverage, in addition to heightened awareness of how global disease-specific initiatives may confound national implementation of the NEML. The study concludes with a call to strengthen country-level policy and procedural coherence around the process of prioritizing and ensuring availability of essential medicines.

Project description:BackgroundGlobally, cardiovascular disease (CVD) is a leading cause of death and disproportionately affects low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). The WHO Model List of Essential Medicines (WHO EML) is a tool for improving accessibility and availability of medicines. This study compared the 2021 WHO EML CVDs basket of medicines with latest available national essential medicines list (NEMLs) for South Africa and 15 Southern African Development Community (SADC) countries to assess consistency in CVDs medicine listing.MethodsThis descriptive, desktop review study compared SADC NEMLs. A comparator list was extracted by combining cardiovascular medicines listed in the 2021 WHO EML for adults and children. SADC country NEMLs were obtained from the WHO Essential Medicines and Health Products Information Portal. Consistency of NEMLs was calculated as a percentage coverage of CVD medicines listed in the 2021 WHO EML. SA hospital and primary health care (PHC) level NEMLs were included as separate formularies.ResultsThe SA hospital level NEML scored 70% consistency with the 2021 WHO EML. Tanzania (84%), Namibia (81%) and Angola (79%) scored the highest consistency. The mean consistency for SADC NEMLs was 66%. The lowest scoring country was Eswatini at 26%. The SA PHC NEML scored 35%. The least listed medicines were beta-blockers, angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs), clopidogrel (43%) and paediatric formulations (furosemide (21%); digoxin (43%)). Individual antihypertensive medicines were most commonly listed. Botswana and Lesotho were the only countries to list a single pill combination (SPC) for the treatment of hypertension.ConclusionsThis comparison indicates that South Africa and most SADC countries are aligned with 2021 WHO EML recommendations. The inclusion of age-appropriate formulations for children as well as ARBs and SPC for the treatment of hypertension may improve patient adherence and cardiovascular outcomes in these countries. More frequent updates to NEMLs should improve consistency. NEMLs were not available for two countries, and these therefore did not form part of this study. Country health expenditure in ranking the consistency of NEMLs was not accounted for. LMICs adopting the essential medicine list strategy should consider imposing minimum consistency thresholds to the WHO EML to improve accessibility and availability of CVD medicines.Trial registrationNot applicable.

Project description:BackgroundDespite 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.MethodsThe 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.ResultsTwenty-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.ConclusionsMany 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.