ReviewTherapeutic innovation & regulatory science2026
Regulatory Reliance in Latin America: Opportunities and Implementation Challenges for International Pharmaceutical Companies.
Review in Therapeutic innovation & regulatory science, 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Regulatory reliance is increasingly used to reduce unnecessary duplication in pharmaceutical regulation, but its legal basis, operational depth, and effect on review time vary substantially across Latin America. This structured narrative policy and practice review maps publicly documented reliance, recognition, verification, abridged/optimized review, homologation, and related facilitated pathways for human medicinal products in selected Latin American jurisdictions. Primary legal instruments and national regulatory authority (NRA) guidance were prioritized, supplemented by WHO/PAHO frameworks, peer-reviewed literature, and selected specialist regulatory sources. Extracted domains included the existence of a written legal or policy basis, pathway status, product eligibility, reference-authority criteria, product-sameness requirements, use of reference-agency assessment reports, local quality/safety/efficacy review, CPP and GMP requirements, pharmacovigilance obligations, and standard versus reliance-specific timelines. The evidence shows marked heterogeneity: some jurisdictions have formal, product-specific reliance procedures, whereas others use partial mechanisms, regional mutual-recognition arrangements, or pathways that remain under implementation. Publicly available reliance-specific review times are sparse and are rarely stratified by new active substances, generics, biosimilars, biologics, or vaccines; therefore, observed or reported timelines should not be interpreted as a uniform causal effect of reliance. For international pharmaceutical sponsors, prior approval by a trusted authority may support a facilitated pathway only when the receiving NRA's legal basis, product scope, dossier sameness, documentary requirements, and post-market obligations are satisfied. Greater transparency on review depth, assessment-report access, and product-level performance metrics is needed to determine the real-world impact of regulatory reliance in the region.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42742915What 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.