A Survey of Industry Perceptions of Facilitated Regulatory Pathways in Drug Development in Australia.

BACKGROUND

In Australia, facilitated regulatory pathways (FRPs) became available with the introduction of priority review (PR) in 2017 and provisional approval (PA) in 2018, which aim to facilitate expedited review and approval for novel medicines. The pathways were developed in consultation with a wide range of stakeholders and have since been utilised by pharmaceutical companies for various therapeutic products. However, the perceptions of the firsthand users of these pathways have not been evaluated in Australia.

OBJECTIVES

We have conducted a survey of Australian regulatory professionals aiming to solicit the perceived benefits, barriers to utilisation, shortcomings and proposed modifications to utilising these pathways. We have also solicited the users' perspective on key aspects of the pathways, including overall satisfaction, regulatory burden, availability and ease of use of guidelines, regulator support, impact on company strategy and recommendations for improvement.

METHODS

A survey was developed and distributed to Australian regulatory professionals from the pharmaceutical industry who had submission experience of new medicine applications via either PR, PA or the standard registration pathway to the Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA). The questionnaire consisted of 44 questions with a skip logic and the option for free text comments.

RESULTS

We received responses from 16/42 companies that had utilised these new pathways. Nine respondents had experience with the PR pathway and ten with the PA pathway. The respondents were generally satisfied with the effectiveness of the PR process in expediting registration approvals, but they were ambivalent towards the PA pathway in terms of overall satisfaction and timelines. Respondents expressed a desire for further improvements in the speed of approval, earlier access for patients across various pathways and introduction of new Health Technology Assessment processes for medicines approved under PA.

CONCLUSION

While the FRPs have been an important and positive development in the Australian regulatory landscape, there remain opportunities for further improvements, some of which have been highlighted by this study and may help inform future regulatory decisions.