Centre for Innovation in Regulatory Science (CIRS), London, UK.
Friars House, 160 Blackfriars Road, London, SE1 8EZ, UK.
Ther Innov Regul Sci. 2021 Jan;55(1):118-128. doi: 10.1007/s43441-020-00196-2. Epub 2020 Jul 2.
The certificate of pharmaceutical product (CPP) was implemented to accelerate the availability of new drugs in developing countries by providing evidence of the quality of products and reducing the time to market through reliance on a prior trusted analysis. However, the CPP format, issuing process and use have not been revised since 1997 and there are significant differences among countries in regard to requirements for CPP timing, terminology, and format. We sought to determine current CPP practices versus national regulatory guidelines and to inform recommendations for the efficient use of the CPP based on the needs of the modern regulatory environment.
We conducted a comparative analysis of company practice versus agency guidelines across 18 maturing pharmaceutical markets using data from the Cortellis for Regulatory Intelligence® (CRI) and the Centre for Innovation in Regulatory Science (CIRS) Emerging Markets Regulatory Review Times (EMaRReT) databases and regulatory authorities' websites.
Of the studied 18 countries, 16 require the CPP for submission of new registrations; many accept alternative documentation but most still require legalization of the CPP and many are not compliant with the complex CPP format. Additional complicating factors include language requirements and varying local guidelines for CPP submission timing and validity dates.
With the implementation of a number of suggested improvements, the CPP can continue to serve an important role in streamlining regulatory efficiency and provide confidence in new medicines, ensuring a more efficient and effective approval process and expediting patient access to safe and effective medicines worldwide.
药品证书(CPP)的实施旨在通过提供产品质量证明并通过依赖先前可信的分析来减少上市时间,从而加速发展中国家新药的可及性。然而,自 1997 年以来,CPP 格式、发布流程和使用方式并未进行修订,而且各国在 CPP 时间、术语和格式要求方面存在显著差异。我们旨在确定当前 CPP 的实践与国家监管指南的差异,并根据现代监管环境的需求,为 CPP 的有效使用提供建议。
我们使用来自 Cortellis for Regulatory Intelligence®(CRI)和 Centre for Innovation in Regulatory Science(CIRS)新兴市场监管审查时间(EMaRReT)数据库以及监管机构网站的数据,对 18 个成熟制药市场的公司实践与机构指南进行了比较分析。
在所研究的 18 个国家中,有 16 个国家要求提交新药注册时提供 CPP;许多国家接受替代文件,但大多数国家仍要求 CPP 合法化,并且许多国家不符合复杂的 CPP 格式要求。其他复杂因素包括语言要求以及 CPP 提交时间和有效期的不同当地指南。
通过实施一些建议的改进措施,CPP 可以继续在简化监管效率方面发挥重要作用,并为新药提供信心,确保更高效和有效的审批程序,并加快全球患者获得安全有效的药物。