{"title":"评估马来西亚药品批准的监管程序:OpERA方法和标准化报告方法。","authors":"Noraisyah Mohd Sani, Siti Hidayah Kasbon, Kian Yee Yap, Muhamad Firdaus Abdullah, Rosliza Lajis, Azuana Ramli, Neil McAuslane, Magda Bujar, Adem Kermad","doi":"10.1007/s43441-025-00846-3","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The Malaysian National Pharmaceutical Regulatory Agency (NPRA) has partnered with the Centre for Innovation in Regulatory Science (CIRS) since 2018 to analyze the approval processes for new active substances (NASs) and biosimilars. Findings from the study on approvals in the year 2017 led to the introduction of several improvement strategies. This study provides an overview of the current review process, including registration pathways, and compares approval times for NASs approved in 2019 vs 2017 to evaluate the impact of the improvement strategies.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>NPRA representatives completed the Country Report using CIRS' Optimizing Efficiencies in Regulatory Agencies (OpERA) questionnaire, identifying key milestones, target timelines, good review and quality decision-making practices, and provided metrics on 24 NASs approved in 2019.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Most indicators for good review practices were implemented by NPRA, with guidelines, standard operating procedures, review templates, and several identifiable quality decision-making practices being in place. NPRA has also introduced several registration pathways with the aim of accelerating approval timelines. Median total approval time decreased from 515 calendar days in 2017 to 399 calendar days in 2019. Reductions were also noted in the median time between dossier receipt and initiation of NPRA scientific assessment.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The study indicates that improvement strategies implemented in 2018 favorably reduced approval times, based on a comparison of products approved in the year 2017 and 2019. Ongoing evaluation of regulatory processes and performance is crucial to identify areas for improvement, eliminating unnecessary steps, and enabling a streamlined and efficient approach.</p>","PeriodicalId":23084,"journal":{"name":"Therapeutic innovation & regulatory science","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.9000,"publicationDate":"2025-07-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Assessing the Malaysian Regulatory Process for Medicinal Product Approval: An OpERA Methodology and Standardized Reporting Approach.\",\"authors\":\"Noraisyah Mohd Sani, Siti Hidayah Kasbon, Kian Yee Yap, Muhamad Firdaus Abdullah, Rosliza Lajis, Azuana Ramli, Neil McAuslane, Magda Bujar, Adem Kermad\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s43441-025-00846-3\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The Malaysian National Pharmaceutical Regulatory Agency (NPRA) has partnered with the Centre for Innovation in Regulatory Science (CIRS) since 2018 to analyze the approval processes for new active substances (NASs) and biosimilars. Findings from the study on approvals in the year 2017 led to the introduction of several improvement strategies. This study provides an overview of the current review process, including registration pathways, and compares approval times for NASs approved in 2019 vs 2017 to evaluate the impact of the improvement strategies.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>NPRA representatives completed the Country Report using CIRS' Optimizing Efficiencies in Regulatory Agencies (OpERA) questionnaire, identifying key milestones, target timelines, good review and quality decision-making practices, and provided metrics on 24 NASs approved in 2019.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Most indicators for good review practices were implemented by NPRA, with guidelines, standard operating procedures, review templates, and several identifiable quality decision-making practices being in place. NPRA has also introduced several registration pathways with the aim of accelerating approval timelines. Median total approval time decreased from 515 calendar days in 2017 to 399 calendar days in 2019. Reductions were also noted in the median time between dossier receipt and initiation of NPRA scientific assessment.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The study indicates that improvement strategies implemented in 2018 favorably reduced approval times, based on a comparison of products approved in the year 2017 and 2019. Ongoing evaluation of regulatory processes and performance is crucial to identify areas for improvement, eliminating unnecessary steps, and enabling a streamlined and efficient approach.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":23084,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Therapeutic innovation & regulatory science\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-07-25\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Therapeutic innovation & regulatory science\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s43441-025-00846-3\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"MEDICAL INFORMATICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Therapeutic innovation & regulatory science","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s43441-025-00846-3","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"MEDICAL INFORMATICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
Assessing the Malaysian Regulatory Process for Medicinal Product Approval: An OpERA Methodology and Standardized Reporting Approach.
Background: The Malaysian National Pharmaceutical Regulatory Agency (NPRA) has partnered with the Centre for Innovation in Regulatory Science (CIRS) since 2018 to analyze the approval processes for new active substances (NASs) and biosimilars. Findings from the study on approvals in the year 2017 led to the introduction of several improvement strategies. This study provides an overview of the current review process, including registration pathways, and compares approval times for NASs approved in 2019 vs 2017 to evaluate the impact of the improvement strategies.
Methods: NPRA representatives completed the Country Report using CIRS' Optimizing Efficiencies in Regulatory Agencies (OpERA) questionnaire, identifying key milestones, target timelines, good review and quality decision-making practices, and provided metrics on 24 NASs approved in 2019.
Results: Most indicators for good review practices were implemented by NPRA, with guidelines, standard operating procedures, review templates, and several identifiable quality decision-making practices being in place. NPRA has also introduced several registration pathways with the aim of accelerating approval timelines. Median total approval time decreased from 515 calendar days in 2017 to 399 calendar days in 2019. Reductions were also noted in the median time between dossier receipt and initiation of NPRA scientific assessment.
Conclusions: The study indicates that improvement strategies implemented in 2018 favorably reduced approval times, based on a comparison of products approved in the year 2017 and 2019. Ongoing evaluation of regulatory processes and performance is crucial to identify areas for improvement, eliminating unnecessary steps, and enabling a streamlined and efficient approach.
期刊介绍:
Therapeutic Innovation & Regulatory Science (TIRS) is the official scientific journal of DIA that strives to advance medical product discovery, development, regulation, and use through the publication of peer-reviewed original and review articles, commentaries, and letters to the editor across the spectrum of converting biomedical science into practical solutions to advance human health.
The focus areas of the journal are as follows:
Biostatistics
Clinical Trials
Product Development and Innovation
Global Perspectives
Policy
Regulatory Science
Product Safety
Special Populations