Samukange Washington T, Kluempers Verena, Kafere Chancelar, Heinrich Kristina, Atemnkeng Joanna, Khadem Broojerdi Alireza, Tirane Florence, Nkansah Edwin, Maboko Shani, Nhukarume Linda, Mutoti Khamusi, Aineplan Noel, Gardasdottir Helga, Mantel-Teeuwisse Aukje K, Reinhardt Jens
Centre for International Cooperation, Paul-Ehrlich-Institut, Langen, Germany.
Division of Pharmacoepidemiology & Clinical Pharmacology, Faculty of Science, Utrecht Institute for Pharmaceutical Sciences (UIPS), Utrecht University, Utrecht, Netherlands.
Front Med (Lausanne). 2025 May 1;12:1519719. doi: 10.3389/fmed.2025.1519719. eCollection 2025.
Independent assessments of blood regulatory systems, facilitated by tools such as the WHO's Global Benchmarking Tool (GBT) plus Blood expedites development of National Regulatory Authorites (NRAs) and thus promotes increased access to safe, effective, and quality blood, blood components, and products. The aim of this study was to assess and compare the status of implementation and performance of the regulatory functions for registration and marketing authorization as well as the system for approval of blood, blood components and plasma for fractionation or processes.
We did this by conducting assisted self-benchmarking in 12 African countries using the GBT plus Blood (registration and marketing authorization function, 34 sub-indicators and approval of blood, blood components, and plasma for fractionation or processes function, 24 sub-indicators). Comparative assessments of WHO-designated maturity level 3 (ML3) NRAs for medicines and vaccines against non-designated NRAs were made.
The percentage of implemented sub-indicators was higher for the registration and marketing authorization function with an average implementation score of 73% (range: 51%-92%) compared to the approval of blood, blood components, and plasma for fractionation or processes function which had an average implementation score of 45% (range: 6%-65%). The comparison of group averages for the ML3-designated NRAs against the non-designated NRAs revealed a higher score 91% (range: 71%-100%) for ML3-designated NRAs as opposed to a lower score of 71% (range: 49%-100%) for the non-designated NRAs for the registration and marketing authorization function. This pattern, however, was not observed for the comparison of group averages for the approval of blood, blood components, and plasma for fractionation or processes function where the ML3-designated NRAs scored 47% (range 19%-72%) against 46% (range 23%-88%) for the non-ML3-designated NRAs.
Most of the NRAs excelled in implementing sub-indicators for the registration and marketing authorization (of plasma-derived medicines) function. All NRAs exhibited notable flaws in regulating blood, blood components, plasma for fraction, and approval of processes, indicating nascent regulatory frameworks. This study highlights the urgent need for WHO and African countries to prioritize formal benchmarking of NRAs using the GBT plus Blood to enhance their regulatory capacities in blood and blood product regulation.
借助世界卫生组织全球基准工具(GBT)plus Blood等工具对血液监管系统进行独立评估,有助于国家监管机构(NRA)的发展,从而促进人们更易获得安全、有效和优质的血液、血液成分及产品。本研究旨在评估和比较注册与上市许可监管职能以及血液、血液成分和用于分馏或加工的血浆审批系统的实施状况和绩效。
我们通过在12个非洲国家使用GBT plus Blood(注册与上市许可职能,34个分项指标;血液、血液成分和用于分馏或加工的血浆审批职能,24个分项指标)进行辅助自我基准评估来开展此项研究。对世界卫生组织指定的药品和疫苗成熟度3级(ML3)NRA与非指定NRA进行了比较评估。
注册与上市许可职能的已实施分项指标百分比更高,平均实施得分73%(范围:51%-92%),而血液、血液成分和用于分馏或加工的血浆审批职能的平均实施得分45%(范围:6%-65%)。ML3指定NRA与非指定NRA的组平均值比较显示,注册与上市许可职能方面,ML3指定NRA得分较高,为91%(范围:71%-100%),而非指定NRA得分较低,为71%(范围:49%-100%)。然而,在血液、血液成分和用于分馏或加工的血浆审批职能的组平均值比较中未观察到这种模式,其中ML3指定NRA得分为47%(范围19%-72%),非ML3指定NRA得分为46%(范围23%-88%)。
大多数NRA在实施(血浆衍生药物的)注册与上市许可职能的分项指标方面表现出色。所有NRA在血液、血液成分、用于分馏的血浆以及加工审批监管方面均存在明显缺陷,表明监管框架尚不完善。本研究强调世界卫生组织和非洲国家迫切需要优先使用GBT plus Blood对NRA进行正式基准评估,以提高其在血液和血液制品监管方面的能力。