ReviewJournal of pharmaceutical policy and practice2026
Transitioning regulatory authorities in South Africa: a comparative review of the organisational structure and management practices.
Review in Journal of pharmaceutical policy and practice, 2026. 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: South Africa's transition from the Medicines Control Council (MCC) to the South African Health Products Regulatory Authority (SAHPRA) in 2018 marked a critical shift in the regulatory landscape. The MCC faced prolonged timelines, inadequate resources and a growing application backlog. This review comparatively examines how organisational, governance, managerial and procedural reforms introduced under SAHPRA (2018-2022) addressed these structural and performance limitations, and assesses their implications for regulatory policy and future system strengthening. Method: A mixed-method literature review combining qualitative thematic synthesis and quantitative descriptive analysis was conducted, drawing on publicly available sources, including government reports, academic journal articles, and organisational websites. Quantitative data (e.g. median approval timelines, backlog volumes and approval numbers) were systematically extracted from included studies and official reports without primary statistical modelling. Keywords included 'SAHPRA', 'MCC', 'management structures', 'organisational structures', 'regulatory review process', 'approval timelines', 'medicine approval', and 'regulatory authorities'. Screening followed predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria, and data extraction captured governance structures, funding models, quality systems, reliance pathways, review timelines and backlog metrics. Results: SAHPRA's implementation of reliance-based review pathways and risk-based assessments, alongside streamlined operations, reduced median approval times from 2,124 in 2018 to 783 days in 2020, and increased new chemical entity registrations from 15 to 155 over the same period. The inherited backlog (8,220 new applications in 2018) was cleared by 2022. The transition improved financial independence, enhanced institutional autonomy and reduced administrative bottlenecks. SAHPRA also demonstrated responsiveness during the COVID-19 pandemic through expedited review pathways. Conclusion: The transition from MCC to SAHPRA represents a structural and procedural modernisation of South Africa's regulatory framework. While improving efficiency and access to essential medicines, findings should be interpreted cautiously due to reliance on secondary data and variation across sources. Continued digital reform, capacity development and strengthening post-marketing surveillance remain key priorities.
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.