Comparison of the registration process of the medicines control authority of Zimbabwe with Australia, Canada, Singapore, and Switzerland: benchmarking best practices

References

• Sustainable development goals. [Internet] New York (NY): United Nations; [ cited 2021 Apr 21]. Available from: https://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/health
   Google Scholar
• Guzman J, O’Connell E, Kikule K, et al. The WHO global benchmarking tool: a game changer for strengthening national regulatory capacity. BMJ Glob Health. 2020;5(8):e003181.
   Google Scholar
• Khadem Broojerdi A, Baran Sillo H, Ostad Ali Dehaghi R, et al. The world health organization global benchmarking tool: an instrument to strengthen medical products regulation and promote universal health coverage. Front Med. 2020;7:457.
   Google Scholar
• Evans DB, Hsu J, Boerma T, et al. Universal health coverage and universal access. Bull World Health Organ. 2013;91(8):546–546A.
   Google Scholar
• Universal health coverage. [Internet] Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization; [ cited 2021 Jan 2]. Available from: https://www.who.int/health-topics/universal-health-coverage#tab=tab_1
   Google Scholar
• Lumpkin M, Eichler HG, Breckenridge A, et al. Advancing the science of medicines regulation: the role of the 21st‐century medicines regulator. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2012;92:486–493.
   Google Scholar
• Ndomondo-Sigonda M, Miot J, Naidoo S, et al. Medicines regulation in Africa: current state and opportunities. Pharm Med. 2017;31:383–397.
   Google Scholar
• Rägo L, Santoso B. Drug regulation: history, present and future. Drug benefits and risks: Int Textbook Clin Pharmacol. 2008;2:65–77.
   Google Scholar
• Dunne S, Shannon B, Dunne C, et al. A review of the differences and similarities between generic drugs and their originator counterparts, including economic benefits associated with usage of generic medicines, using Ireland as a case study. BMC Pharmacol Toxicol. 2013;14(1):1.
   Google Scholar
• Kaplan WA, Ritz LS, Vitello M, et al. Policies to promote use of generic medicines in low-and middle-income countries: a review of published literature, 2000–2010. Health Pol. 2012;106:211–224.
   Google Scholar
• Essential medicines and health products. WHO global benchmarking tool (GBT) for evaluation of national regulatory systems. [Internet] Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization; [ cited 2021 Jul 30]. Available from: https://www.who.int/medicines/regulation/benchmarking_tool/en/
   Google Scholar
• Regulatory system strengthening for medical products. 2014 24 May. Contract No: World Health Assembly 67.20. [Internet] Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization; [ cited 2021 Jul 30]. Available from: https://apps.who.int/gb/ebwha/pdf_files/WHA67-REC1/A67_2014_REC1-en.pdf
   Google Scholar
• World Health Organization. World health organization concept note: a framework for evaluating and publicly designating regulatory authorities as WHO-listed authorities. WHO Drug Info. 2019;33:139–158.
   Google Scholar
• Tanzania food and drug authority becomes the first to reach level 3 of the WHO benchmarking programme. [Internet] Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization; [ cited 2021 Jul 30]. Available from: https://www.afro.who.int/news/tanzania-food-and-drug-authority-becomes-first-reach-level-3-who-benchmarking-programme
   Google Scholar
• Ghana foods and drugs authority (FDA) attains maturity level 3 regulatory status. [Internet] Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization; [ cited 2021 Jul 30]. Available from: https://www.afro.who.int/news/ghana-foods-and-drugs-authority-fda-attains-maturity-level-3-regulatory-status
   Google Scholar
• International Monetary Fund African Department. Zimbabwe: INTERNATIONAL MONETARY FUND; 2017.
   Google Scholar
• Zimbabwe country data. [Internet]. Washington, DC: The World Bank; 2021 [ cited 2021 Jan 6]. Available at: https://data.worldbank.org/country/ZW
   Google Scholar
• Transitional stabilisation programme reforms agenda. Hararae, Zimbabwe: Republic of Zimbabwe; 2018 Oct 5. [ cited 2020 Dec 20]. Available from: https://t3n9sm.c2.acecdn.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/Abridged_Transitional_-programme.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Medicines control authority of Zimbabwe. [Internet] Harare, Zimbabwe: Medicines Control Authority of Zimbabwe; [ cited 2020 Apr 3]. Available at: http://www.mcaz.co.zw/index.php/downloads/category/7-regulations
   Google Scholar
• Sithole T, Mahlangu G, Salek S, et al. Evaluation of the regulatory review process in Zimbabwe: challenges and opportunities. Ther Innov Reg Sci. 2021;55:474–489.
   Google Scholar
• Ndomondo-Sigonda M, Miot J, Naidoo S, et al. The African medicines regulatory harmonization initiative: progress to date. Med Res Arch. 2018;6.
   Google Scholar
• Towards a prosperous and empowered upper middle income by 2030: national development strategy, January 2021 December 2025. [Internet]. Harare, Zimbabwe: Republic of Zimbabwe; [ cited 2021 Jan 13]. Available from: http://www.zimtreasury.gov.zw/index.php?option=com_phocadownload&view=category&id=64&Itemid=789
   Google Scholar
• Centre for Innovation in Regulatory Science. R&D briefing 77: new drug approvals in six major authorities 2010–2019. Focus on Facilitated Regulatory Pathways and Internationalisation; 2020 [ cited 2021 Jan 9]. Available from: https://cirsci.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/CIRS-RD-Briefing-77-6-agencies.pdf
   Google Scholar
• McAuslane N, Cone M, Collins J, et al. Emerging markets and emerging agencies: a comparative study of how key regulatory agencies in Asia, Latin America, the Middle East, and Africa are developing regulatory processes and review models for new medicinal products. Drug Info J. 2009;43:349–359.
   Google Scholar
• Sithole T, Mahlangu G, Salek S, et al. Evaluating the success of ZaZiBoNa, the Southern African development community collaborative medicines registration initiative. Ther Innov Reg Sci. 2020;54:1319–1329.
   Google Scholar
• McAuslane N, Leong J, Liberti L, et al. The benefit-risk assessment of medicines: experience of a consortium of medium-sized regulatory authorities. Ther Innov Reg Sci. 2017;51:635–644.
   Google Scholar
• Bujar M, McAuslane N, Walker SR, et al. Evaluating quality of decision-making processes in medicines’ development, regulatory review, and health technology assessment: a systematic review of the literature. Front Pharmacol. 2017;8:189.
   Google Scholar
• Bujar M, McAuslane N, Walker S, et al. The reliability and relevance of a quality of decision-making instrument, quality of decision-making orientation scheme (QoDoS), for use during the lifecycle of medicines. Front Pharmacol. 2019;10:17.
   Google Scholar
• Morgan SG, Yau B, Lumpkin MM, et al. The cost of entry: an analysis of pharmaceutical registration fees in low-, middle-, and high-income countries. PLoS ONE. 2017;12(8):e0182742.
   Google Scholar
• Luigetti R, Bachmann P, Cooke E, et al. Collaboration, not competition: developing new reliance models. WHO Drug Info. 2016;30:558.
   Google Scholar
• Ahonkhai V, Martins SF, Portet A, et al. Speeding access to vaccines and medicines in low- and middle-income countries: a case for change and a framework for optimized product market authorization. PLoS ONE. 2016;11(11):e0166515.
   Google Scholar
• Centre for Innovation and Regulatory Science. Workshop Report on Practical implementation of reliance models: What are the barriers and facilitators to the successful application of these models for innovative medicines, generics and variations? March 2018, South Africa. [cited 2021 Apr 21]. Available from https://cirsci.org/wp-content/uploads/dlm_uploads/2020/09/CIRS-March-2018-Workshop-report_Practical-implementation-of-reliance-models.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Rodier C, Bujar M, McAuslane N, et al. Use of the certificate for pharmaceutical products (CPP) in 18 maturing pharmaceutical markets: comparing agency guidelines with company practice. Ther Innov Reg Sci. 2020;55(1):1–11.
   Google Scholar
• Gwaza L Adjusted indirect treatment comparisons of bioequivalence studies [dissertation]. Utrecht, the Netherlands: Utrecht University; 2016.
   Google Scholar
• SEA/RC66/R4-health intervention and technology assessment in support of universal health coverage. WHO Regional Office for South-East Asia; 2013 [Internet] Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization; [ cited 2021 Jul 30]. Available from: https://www.who.int/medical_devices/assessment/resolutionsearo_searc66r4.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Attieh R, Gagnon M-P. Implementation of local/hospital-based health technology assessment initiatives in low-and middle-income countries. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2012;28:445–451.
   Google Scholar
• Nemzoff C, Ruiz F, Chalkidou K, et al. Adaptive health technology assessment to facilitate priority setting in low-and middle-income countries. BMJ Glob Health. 2021;6:e004549.
   Google Scholar
• Keyter A, Salek S, Banoo S, et al. The South African medicines control council: comparison of its registration process with Australia, Canada, Singapore, and Switzerland. Front Pharmacol. 2019;10:228.
   Google Scholar
• Ceyhan EM, Gürsöz H, Alkan A, et al. The Turkish medicines and medical devices agency: comparison of its registration process with Australia, Canada, Saudi Arabia, and Singapore. Front Pharmacol. 2018;9:9.
   Google Scholar
• Al Haqaish WS, Obeidat H, Patel P, et al. The Jordan food and drug administration: comparison of its registration process with Australia, Canada, Saudi Arabia and Singapore. Pharm Med. 2017;31:21–30.
   Google Scholar
• Hashan H, Aljuffali I, Patel P, et al. The Saudi Arabia food and drug authority: an evaluation of the registration process and good review practices in Saudi Arabia in comparison with Australia, Canada and Singapore. Pharm Med. 2016;30:37–47.
   Google Scholar