ArticleTherapeutic innovation & regulatory science2025
Assessing the Malaysian Regulatory Process for Medicinal Product Approval: An OpERA Methodology and Standardized Reporting Approach.
Article in Therapeutic innovation & regulatory science, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe Malaysian National Pharmaceutical Regulatory Agency (NPRA) has partnered with the Centre for Innovation in Regulatory Science (CIRS) since 2018 to analyze the approval processes for new active substances (NASs) and biosimilars. Findings from the study on approvals in the year 2017 led to the introduction of several improvement strategies. This study provides an overview of the current review process, including registration pathways, and compares approval times for NASs approved in 2019 vs 2017 to evaluate the impact of the improvement strategies.
methodsNPRA representatives completed the Country Report using CIRS' Optimizing Efficiencies in Regulatory Agencies (OpERA) questionnaire, identifying key milestones, target timelines, good review and quality decision-making practices, and provided metrics on 24 NASs approved in 2019.
resultsMost indicators for good review practices were implemented by NPRA, with guidelines, standard operating procedures, review templates, and several identifiable quality decision-making practices being in place. NPRA has also introduced several registration pathways with the aim of accelerating approval timelines. Median total approval time decreased from 515 calendar days in 2017 to 399 calendar days in 2019. Reductions were also noted in the median time between dossier receipt and initiation of NPRA scientific assessment.
conclusionsThe study indicates that improvement strategies implemented in 2018 favorably reduced approval times, based on a comparison of products approved in the year 2017 and 2019. Ongoing evaluation of regulatory processes and performance is crucial to identify areas for improvement, eliminating unnecessary steps, and enabling a streamlined and efficient approach.
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.