A Retrospective Analysis of Applications for Registration of Generic Medicines Processed by the Medicines Control Authority of Zimbabwe
Therapeutic Innovation and Regulatory Science, ISSN: 2168-4804, Vol: 57, Issue: 2, Page: 287-294
2023
- 14Captures
Metric Options: CountsSelecting the 1-year or 3-year option will change the metrics count to percentiles, illustrating how an article or review compares to other articles or reviews within the selected time period in the same journal. Selecting the 1-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year. Selecting the 3-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year plus the two years prior.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Metrics Details
- Captures14
- Readers14
- 14
Article Description
Background: Many applications for registration of medicines are rejected because applicants fail to submit or resolve critical deficiencies in the quality, efficacy, and safety of the medicines. The study aimed to establish approval rates, processing timelines, and common deficiencies of generic medicines applications processed by the Medicines Authority of Zimbabwe (MCAZ). Method: A retrospective study of applications finalized by MCAZ between 2018 and 2020 was conducted. Data were collected from the assessment reports and verified with copies of letters sent to the applicants. Deficiencies were classified as administrative, quality, efficacy, and safety. Other characteristics collated included time to finalization, dosage form, region of origin, and therapeutic class. Results: Of the 579 finalized applications, 74.1% were approved while 25.9% were refused. Approved applications had more review cycles (median = 3 cycles) compared to refused applications (median = 2 cycles). However, refused applications had longer review times (median = 25 months) compared to approved applications (median = 18 months). The majority of applications (83.0%) were from Asian manufacturers and intended for oral administration (66.1%). Medicines for the endocrine system (50.0%) and rheumatism/gout (53.3%) had lower approval rates compared to other therapeutical classes (p < 0.001). The most common reasons for refusal of applications included failure to respond to review queries (52.6%), deficiencies in the API information (54.7%), FPP specifications (42.7%), FPP stability data (36.0%), and pharmaceutical development (31.3%). Conclusion: To improve the quality of applications and evaluation outcomes, there may be a need for the regulatory authority to engage applicants through training and pre-submission meetings.
Bibliographic Details
http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?partnerID=HzOxMe3b&scp=85140407308&origin=inward; http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s43441-022-00469-y; http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36269550; https://link.springer.com/10.1007/s43441-022-00469-y; https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s43441-022-00469-y; https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s43441-022-00469-y
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Provide Feedback
Have ideas for a new metric? Would you like to see something else here?Let us know