ArticlePharmaceutical medicine2023
A Survey of Industry Perceptions of Facilitated Regulatory Pathways in Drug Development in Australia.
Article in Pharmaceutical medicine, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIn Australia, facilitated regulatory pathways (FRPs) became available with the introduction of priority review (PR) in 2017 and provisional approval (PA) in 2018, which aim to facilitate expedited review and approval for novel medicines. The pathways were developed in consultation with a wide range of stakeholders and have since been utilised by pharmaceutical companies for various therapeutic products. However, the perceptions of the firsthand users of these pathways have not been evaluated in Australia.
objectivesWe have conducted a survey of Australian regulatory professionals aiming to solicit the perceived benefits, barriers to utilisation, shortcomings and proposed modifications to utilising these pathways. We have also solicited the users' perspective on key aspects of the pathways, including overall satisfaction, regulatory burden, availability and ease of use of guidelines, regulator support, impact on company strategy and recommendations for improvement.
methodsA survey was developed and distributed to Australian regulatory professionals from the pharmaceutical industry who had submission experience of new medicine applications via either PR, PA or the standard registration pathway to the Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA). The questionnaire consisted of 44 questions with a skip logic and the option for free text comments.
resultsWe received responses from 16/42 companies that had utilised these new pathways. Nine respondents had experience with the PR pathway and ten with the PA pathway. The respondents were generally satisfied with the effectiveness of the PR process in expediting registration approvals, but they were ambivalent towards the PA pathway in terms of overall satisfaction and timelines. Respondents expressed a desire for further improvements in the speed of approval, earlier access for patients across various pathways and introduction of new Health Technology Assessment processes for medicines approved under PA.
conclusionWhile the FRPs have been an important and positive development in the Australian regulatory landscape, there remain opportunities for further improvements, some of which have been highlighted by this study and may help inform future regulatory decisions.
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.