Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35767216›Full record

ArticlePharmaceutical medicine2022

Evaluation of the Performance of the Gulf Cooperation Council Centralised Regulatory Review Process: Strategies to Improve Product Authorisation Efficiency and Quality.

Hajed M Hashan, Sarah K Al-Muteb, Ibrahim A Alismail, Othman N Alsaleh, Zakiya M Alkherb, Neil McAuslane, Stuart R Walker

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Pharmaceutical medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Hajed M HashanGulf Health Council, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.
Sarah K Al-MutebGulf Health Council, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.
Ibrahim A AlismailGulf Health Council, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.
Othman N AlsalehGulf Health Council, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.
Zakiya M AlkherbGulf Health Council, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.
Neil McAuslaneCentre for Innovation in Regulatory Science, 160 Blackfriars Road, London, SE1 8EZ, UK.
Stuart R WalkerCentre for Innovation in Regulatory Science, 160 Blackfriars Road, London, SE1 8EZ, UK. swalker@cirsci.org.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7688-5306

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe 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.

objectivesThe 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.

methodsA 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.

resultsThe 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.

conclusionsGCC 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.

Identifiers

PMID35767216
PMCPMC9334421

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.