Suppr超能文献

约旦食品药品管理局:其注册流程与澳大利亚、加拿大、沙特阿拉伯及新加坡的比较

The Jordan Food and Drug Administration: Comparison of its Registration Process with Australia, Canada, Saudi Arabia and Singapore.

作者信息

Haqaish Wesal Salem Al, Obeidat Hayel, Patel Prisha, Walker Stuart

机构信息

Drug Registration, Jordan Food and Drug Administration, Shafa Badran, Amman, Jordan 11181 Jordan.

Global Development Programme, Centre for Innovation in Regulatory Science, 77 Hatton Garden, London, EC1N 8JS UK.

出版信息

Pharmaceut Med. 2017;31(1):21-30. doi: 10.1007/s40290-016-0172-4. Epub 2016 Dec 15.

Abstract

OBJECTIVE

This study outlines the current regulatory review process and good review practices (GRevPs) at the Jordan Food and Drug Administration (JFDA) and compares them with those of regulatory agencies in Australia, Canada, Saudi Arabia and Singapore to gauge how well the JFDA is performing. We identify opportunities for further development of the JFDA as a key global reference agency.

METHODS

Personnel within the JFDA completed a questionnaire comprising four sections: organisation, key milestones, review timelines, and GRevPs. The same questionnaire was used concurrently to gather information from Australia's Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA), Health Canada, the Saudi Food and Drug Authority (SFDA) and Singapore's Health Sciences Authority (HSA).

RESULTS

The JFDA conducts an abridged review for new active substances and requires a certificate of pharmaceutical product (CPP) at the time of submission and 6 months of pharmacovigilance data at the time of the final review as well as full pharmaceutical, chemistry, manufacturing and controls (CMC) and clinical data at the time of submission. A written summary and tabulated data are required for non-clinical data. The four comparator agencies conduct full assessments; the SFDA also requires a CPP, and the JFDA and SFDA both require pricing information at submission. All agencies have established target timelines, and the JFDA, SFDA, TGA and HSA currently exceed those targets. All agencies have also developed GRevPs as well as training and continuous-improvement processes.

CONCLUSIONS

The JFDA has achieved significant success in its role as a regulatory agency by setting and implementing clear regulations in line with international guidance. It is recognised as a training centre in the region, with considerable achievements in the development of its activities by simplifying and improving requirements, procedures and actions. It also publishes information regarding guidance, procedures, drug application submissions and registration dates for all new chemical entities on its website. The relationship between the JFDA and the pharmaceutical sector in Jordan has resulted in balanced, practical, internationally compatible regulations and demonstrates a viable model of collaboration. To assist the JFDA in its efforts to become a key global reference agency, it is suggested that the agency explore a risk-stratification approach to the regulatory review; accept CPPs after dossier submission or use alternatives to the CPP; conduct pricing evaluations in parallel with scientific assessments; establish defined target times for review milestones and improve internal tracking systems to monitor these milestones; and make certain information transparent to all stakeholders by publishing a summary basis of approval.

摘要

目的

本研究概述了约旦食品药品管理局(JFDA)当前的监管审评流程和良好审评规范(GRevP),并将其与澳大利亚、加拿大、沙特阿拉伯和新加坡的监管机构进行比较,以评估JFDA的表现情况。我们确定JFDA作为关键全球参考机构进一步发展的机会。

方法

JFDA的工作人员完成了一份包含四个部分的问卷:组织架构、关键节点、审评时间表和GRevP。同时使用相同的问卷从澳大利亚治疗用品管理局(TGA)、加拿大卫生部、沙特食品药品管理局(SFDA)和新加坡卫生科学局(HSA)收集信息。

结果

JFDA对新活性物质进行简化审评,并要求在提交申请时提供药品证书(CPP),在最终审评时提供6个月的药物警戒数据,以及在提交申请时提供完整的药学、化学、生产和控制(CMC)及临床数据。非临床数据需要提供书面总结和列表数据。四个对比机构进行全面评估;SFDA也要求提供CPP,JFDA和SFDA都要求在提交申请时提供定价信息。所有机构都制定了目标时间表,JFDA、SFDA、TGA和HSA目前都超过了这些目标。所有机构还制定了GRevP以及培训和持续改进流程。

结论

JFDA通过按照国际指南制定和实施明确的法规,在其作为监管机构的角色中取得了显著成功。它被公认为该地区的培训中心,通过简化和改进要求、程序和行动,在其活动发展方面取得了相当大的成就。它还在其网站上公布有关指南、程序、药品申请提交和所有新化学实体注册日期的信息。JFDA与约旦制药行业之间的关系产生了平衡、实用、与国际接轨的法规,并展示了一种可行的合作模式。为协助JFDA努力成为关键的全球参考机构,建议该机构探索一种风险分层的监管审评方法;在申请文件提交后接受CPP或使用CPP的替代方案;在进行科学评估的同时进行定价评估;为审评节点设定明确的目标时间,并改进内部跟踪系统以监测这些节点;通过公布批准的总结依据,使某些信息对所有利益相关者透明。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/b853/5429368/210323598437/40290_2016_172_Fig1_HTML.jpg

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验