ArticleTherapeutic innovation & regulatory science2020
Evaluation of the Performance of the South Africa Regulatory Agency: Recommendations for Improved Patients' Access to Medicines.
Article in Therapeutic innovation & regulatory science, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Transitioning regulatory authorities in South Africa: a comparative review of the organisational structure and management practices.Journal of pharmaceutical policy and practice · 2026Review
- Evaluation of the Regulatory Review Process of the Zambia Medicines Regulatory Authority: Challenges and Opportunities.Therapeutic innovation & regulatory science · 2025Article
- The Implementation of a Risk-Based Assessment Approach by the South African Health Products Regulatory Authority (SAHPRA).Pharmaceutical medicine · 2023Article
- A Proposed Regulatory Review Model to Support the South African Health Products Regulatory Authority to Become a More Efficient and Effective Agency.International journal of health policy and management · 2022Article
- Regulatory Authority Evaluation of the Effectiveness and Efficiency of the ZaZiBoNa Collaborative Medicines Registration Initiative: The Way Forward.Frontiers in medicine · 2022Article
- Pharmaceutical Industry Evaluation of the Effectiveness and Efficiency of the ZaZiBoNa Collaborative Medicines Registration Initiative: The Way Forward.Frontiers in medicine · 2022Article
- South African Regulatory Authority: The Impact of Reliance on the Review Process Leading to Improved Patient Access.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundTimely access to new medicines may be addressed through strengthening of registration efficiencies and timelines by establishing and refining value-added registration processes, resources, and systems. The aims of this study were to evaluate the timelines of the milestones of the South African review process and the overall approval process for new active substances (NASs) in 2015-2018 and to provide recommendations for improved patients' access to new medicines through timely registration.
methodsData identifying the milestones and overall approval times for NASs registered by the South African Agency during 2015-2018 were collected and analyzed.
resultsThe most NASs (42) were approved in 2017 and the least (15) in 2018. The shortest median approval time (1218 calendar days) was achieved in 2015 and the longest (2124 days), in 2018. All applications were reviewed using the full review process, and 16/99 (16%) were assigned priority status and were reviewed and approved through the fast track review.
conclusionsWhile the extensive delays in NASs approvals in South Africa may be attributed to inefficient operational processes, resource constraints, and as an increased number of applications for registration, the newly established South African Heath Products Regulatory Agency has re-engineered and streamlined its regulatory review process, which has been piloted and will be enhanced prior to final implementation. Among recommendations for improvement, SAHPRA should consider measurement and monitoring of milestones, facilitated regulatory pathways, implementing a reliance strategy, and a quality management system.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.