Alina Yoffe, Johnson Liu, Greg Smith, Orin Chisholm
{"title":"澳大利亚药品开发中促进监管途径的行业认知调查。","authors":"Alina Yoffe, Johnson Liu, Greg Smith, Orin Chisholm","doi":"10.1007/s40290-023-00483-x","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Objectives: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>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.</p>","PeriodicalId":19778,"journal":{"name":"Pharmaceutical Medicine","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.1000,"publicationDate":"2023-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/3c/17/40290_2023_Article_483.PMC10460712.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A Survey of Industry Perceptions of Facilitated Regulatory Pathways in Drug Development in Australia.\",\"authors\":\"Alina Yoffe, Johnson Liu, Greg Smith, Orin Chisholm\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s40290-023-00483-x\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Objectives: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>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.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":19778,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Pharmaceutical Medicine\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-09-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/3c/17/40290_2023_Article_483.PMC10460712.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Pharmaceutical Medicine\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s40290-023-00483-x\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2023/6/27 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Pharmaceutical Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s40290-023-00483-x","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/6/27 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY","Score":null,"Total":0}
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.
期刊介绍：
Pharmaceutical Medicine is a specialist discipline concerned with medical aspects of the discovery, development, evaluation, registration, regulation, monitoring, marketing, distribution and pricing of medicines, drug-device and drug-diagnostic combinations. The Journal disseminates information to support the community of professionals working in these highly inter-related functions. Key areas include translational medicine, clinical trial design, pharmacovigilance, clinical toxicology, drug regulation, clinical pharmacology, biostatistics and pharmacoeconomics. The Journal includes:Overviews of contentious or emerging issues.Comprehensive narrative reviews that provide an authoritative source of information on topical issues.Systematic reviews that collate empirical evidence to answer a specific research question, using explicit, systematic methods as outlined by PRISMA statement.Original research articles reporting the results of well-designed studies with a strong link to wider areas of clinical research.Additional digital features (including animated abstracts, video abstracts, slide decks, audio slides, instructional videos, infographics, podcasts and animations) can be published with articles; these are designed to increase the visibility, readership and educational value of the journal’s content. In addition, articles published in Pharmaceutical Medicine may be accompanied by plain language summaries to assist readers who have some knowledge of, but not in-depth expertise in, the area to understand important medical advances.All manuscripts are subject to peer review by international experts. Letters to the Editor are welcomed and will be considered for publication.
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号
