The South African Medicines Control Council: Comparison of Its Registration Process With Australia, Canada, Singapore, and Switzerland

© 2019 Keyter, Salek, Banoo and Walker.Introduction: Comparisons between regulatory authorities of similar size and regulatory characteristics facilitate value-added benchmarking and provide insight into regulatory performance. Such comparisons highlight areas for improvement as authorities move toward achieving their regulatory goals and stakeholders’ demands. The aims of this study were to compare the registration process and the regulatory review model of the South African Medicines Control Council (MCC) to that of four other similar-sized regulatory authorities and to identify areas for improvement that may inform recommendations to the South African Health Products Regulatory Authority (SAHPRA) as it looks to re-engineer and enhance the registration process in South Africa. Methods: A questionnaire describing the organisational structure, the registration process, good review and decision-making practices of the MCC was completed by the author (AK) for the purpose of this study and validated by the Registrar of the MCC. Similar questionnaires were also completed and validated by Australia’s Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA), Canada’s Health Canada, Singapore’s Health Science Authority (HSA) and Switzerland’s Swissmedic. Results: A comparison of the MCC regulatory process with the four comparative agencies indicated that they all have similar requirements and employ a full-review model although the timelines for the MCC were considerably longer. However, similar quality measures were implemented by all authorities as part of their good review practices (GRevP) including prioritising transparency, communication, continuous improvement initiatives and training. Conclusion: Comparisons made through this study provided insight into the areas of the MCC registration process that may be improved and have informed recommendations to SAHPRA including the implementation of facilitated regulatory pathways, definition of targets for key milestones in regulatory review and formal implementation and monitoring of GRevP. In order to build quality into the review process the application of a standardised template for the clinical assessment of medicines such as the Universal Methodology for Benefit-Risk Assessment (UMBRA) could be considered as well as enhancing transparency and communication through the application of an electronic management system and the development of publicly available summaries for the basis of approval.Peer reviewedFinal Published versio

A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, crossover study to assess the immediate effect of sublingual glyceryl trinitrate on the ankle brachial pressure index, claudication, and maximum walking distance of patients with intermittent claudication

AbstractPurpose:The goal of the present study was to assess the immediate effect of sublingual glyceryl trinitrate (GTN) in patients with intermittent claudication. Methods: We conducted a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled crossover study. Inclusion criteria consisted of history of intermittent claudication, resting ankle brachial pressure index (ABPI) of 1.00 or less, a 20% or greater fall in ABPI after exercise, and maximum walking distance (MWD) of less than 250 m. Patients already receiving nitrates were excluded. In study 1, patients (n = 25) underwent a standard exercise test after randomization to receive either 800 μg of sublingual GTN or placebo. The postexercise ABPI was recorded. Then, the crossover portion of the study was performed. In study 2, patients (n = 22) had their claudication distance and MWD measured. They then were randomized to receive either GTN or placebo spray, and the exercise test was repeated, with the claudication distance and MWD recorded, followed by the crossover portion of the study. Statistical analysis was performed with the Wilcoxon matched pairs signed ranks test and the Mann-Whitney U test. Results:In study 1, the median postexercise ABPIs for placebo and GTN were 0.29 and 0.36 (P = .0001). In study 2, the median claudication distance for both placebo and GTN groups was 70 m (P = .59). The median MWD for the placebo and GTN groups was 105 and 125 m (P = .0084) Conclusion: GTN can decrease the fall in ABPI after exercise and increase the MWD. (J Vasc Surg 1998;28:895-900.

Health Technology Assessment (HTA) Case Studies : Factors Influencing Divergent HTA Reimbursement Recommendations in Australia, Canada, England, and Scotland

This document is the accepted manuscript version of the following article: Nicola Allen, Stuart R. Walker, Lawrence Liberti, and Sam Salek, ‘Health Technology Assessment (HTA) Case Studies: Factors Influencing Divergent HTA Reimbursement Recommendations in Australia, Canada, England, and Scotland’, Vol. 20 (3): 320-328, 2017, is made available under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives License CC BY NC-ND 4.0 ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ ), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, and is not altered, transformed, or built upon in any way. The final, definitive version is available online at doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2016.10.014.OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the national regulatory, health technology assessment (HTA), and reimbursement pathways for public health care in Australia, Canada, England, and Scotland, to compare initial Canadian national HTA recommendations with the initial decisions of the other HTA agencies, and to identify factors for differing national HTA recommendations between the four HTA agencies. METHODS: Information from the public domain was used to develop a regulatory process map for each jurisdiction and to compare the HTA agencies' reimbursement recommendations. Medicines that were reviewed by all four agencies and received a negative recommendation from only one agency were selected as case studies. RESULTS: All four countries have a national HTA agency. Their reimbursement recommendations are guided by both clinical efficacy and cost-effectiveness, and the necessity for patient input. Their activities, however, vary because of different mandates and their unique political, social, and population needs. All have an implicit or explicit quality-adjusted life-year threshold. The seven divergent case studies demonstrate examples in which new medicine-indication pairs have been rejected because of uncertainties surrounding a range of factors including cost-effectiveness, comparator choice, clinical benefit, safety, trial design, and submission timing. CONCLUSIONS: The four HTA agencies selected for inclusion in this study share common factors, including a focus on clinical efficacy and cost-effectiveness in their decision-making processes. The differences in recommendations could be considered to be due to an individual agency's approach to risk perception, and the comparator choice used in clinical and cost-effectiveness studies.Peer reviewedFinal Accepted Versio