Bridging the gap: enhancing blood regulatory functions in African contexts through comparative analysis.

IF 3.1 3区 医学 Q1 MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL
Frontiers in Medicine Pub Date : 2025-05-01 eCollection Date: 2025-01-01 DOI:10.3389/fmed.2025.1519719
Washington T Samukange, Verena Kluempers, Chancelar Kafere, Kristina Heinrich, Joanna Atemnkeng, Alireza Khadem Broojerdi, Florence Tirane, Edwin Nkansah, Shani Maboko, Linda Nhukarume, Khamusi Mutoti, Noel Aineplan, Helga Gardasdottir, Aukje K Mantel-Teeuwisse, Jens Reinhardt
{"title":"Bridging the gap: enhancing blood regulatory functions in African contexts through comparative analysis.","authors":"Washington T Samukange, Verena Kluempers, Chancelar Kafere, Kristina Heinrich, Joanna Atemnkeng, Alireza Khadem Broojerdi, Florence Tirane, Edwin Nkansah, Shani Maboko, Linda Nhukarume, Khamusi Mutoti, Noel Aineplan, Helga Gardasdottir, Aukje K Mantel-Teeuwisse, Jens Reinhardt","doi":"10.3389/fmed.2025.1519719","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>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.</p>","PeriodicalId":12488,"journal":{"name":"Frontiers in Medicine","volume":"12 ","pages":"1519719"},"PeriodicalIF":3.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12078219/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Frontiers in Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3389/fmed.2025.1519719","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction: 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.

Methods: 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.

Results: 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.

Conclusion: 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.

弥合差距:通过比较分析加强非洲背景下的血液调节功能。
通过世卫组织的全球基准工具(GBT)和血液等工具促进对血液监管系统进行独立评估,可加快国家监管机构的发展,从而促进更多地获得安全、有效和优质的血液、血液成分和制品。本研究的目的是评估和比较注册和上市许可以及血液、血液成分和血浆分离或工艺批准系统的监管职能的实施和绩效状况。方法:我们通过在12个非洲国家使用GBT + Blood(注册和销售授权功能,34个子指标,批准血液、血液成分和血浆用于分离或处理功能,24个子指标)进行辅助自我基准测试来实现这一目标。对针对非指定NRAs的药物和疫苗的世卫组织指定的成熟度3级(ML3) NRAs进行了比较评估。结果:注册和上市授权功能的子指标执行率较高,平均执行率为73%(范围:51% ~ 92%),而血液、血液成分和血浆分馏或工艺功能的子指标执行率平均为45%(范围:6% ~ 65%)。ml3指定的NRAs与非指定的NRAs的组平均比较显示,ml3指定的NRAs在注册和销售授权功能方面的得分较高,为91%(范围:71%-100%),而非指定的NRAs的得分较低,为71%(范围:49%-100%)。然而,在血液、血液成分和血浆分离或处理功能批准的组平均值比较中没有观察到这种模式,其中ml3指定的NRAs得分为47%(范围为19%-72%),而非ml3指定的NRAs得分为46%(范围为23%-88%)。结论:大部分nra在血浆源性药物注册和上市许可职能的子指标执行方面表现较好。所有NRAs在调节血液、血液成分、血浆组分和审批过程中都表现出明显的缺陷,表明监管框架尚处于起步阶段。这项研究突出表明,世卫组织和非洲国家迫切需要优先考虑使用GBT +血液对非限制性抗体进行正式基准测试,以加强其在血液和血液制品监管方面的监管能力。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Frontiers in Medicine
Frontiers in Medicine Medicine-General Medicine
CiteScore
5.10
自引率
5.10%
发文量
3710
审稿时长
12 weeks
期刊介绍: Frontiers in Medicine publishes rigorously peer-reviewed research linking basic research to clinical practice and patient care, as well as translating scientific advances into new therapies and diagnostic tools. Led by an outstanding Editorial Board of international experts, this multidisciplinary open-access journal is at the forefront of disseminating and communicating scientific knowledge and impactful discoveries to researchers, academics, clinicians and the public worldwide. In addition to papers that provide a link between basic research and clinical practice, a particular emphasis is given to studies that are directly relevant to patient care. In this spirit, the journal publishes the latest research results and medical knowledge that facilitate the translation of scientific advances into new therapies or diagnostic tools. The full listing of the Specialty Sections represented by Frontiers in Medicine is as listed below. As well as the established medical disciplines, Frontiers in Medicine is launching new sections that together will facilitate - the use of patient-reported outcomes under real world conditions - the exploitation of big data and the use of novel information and communication tools in the assessment of new medicines - the scientific bases for guidelines and decisions from regulatory authorities - access to medicinal products and medical devices worldwide - addressing the grand health challenges around the world
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信