User login
A new study has revealed substantial differences between health authorities in different regions of the world.
A pair of researchers compared 12 different regulatory authorities responsible for approving drugs and medical products.
The researchers collected data* on annual budgets, new drug approvals per year, numbers of reviewers, standard and median review times, fees for new drug applications (NDAs), and other measurements.
The results were published in Nature Reviews Drug Discovery.
For the 2015 fiscal year, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) had the highest budget—$1.19 billion—and India’s Central Drugs Standard Control Organization (CDSCO) had the lowest—$26 million.
In 2016, the FDA again had the highest budget—$1.23 billion—while Health Canada and Switzerland’s SwissMedic had the lowest—$108 million.
In 2016, the European Medicines Agency (EMA) had the highest number of reviewers—4500—and SwissMedic had the lowest—60. (Data from 2015 were not included.)
In 2015, Japan’s Pharmaceuticals and Medical Devices Agency had the highest number of NDA submissions—127—and Health Canada had the lowest—27. Meanwhile, the Chinese FDA had the highest number of new drug approvals—72—and India’s CDSCO had the lowest—17.
The UK’s Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) technically had the most new drug approvals in 2015, at 146, but not all of these were unique, as the number included all decentralized applications, both with the UK as the reference member state and approvals from concerned member states.
In 2016, the EMA had the highest number of NDA submissions—68—and Health Canada had the lowest—25. Singapore’s Health Sciences Authority had the highest number of new drug approvals—72—while the US FDA and India’s CDSCO had the lowest—22.
The shortest standard review period was 210 days. This is the standard for the EMA, the UK’s MHRA, and Russia’s Roszdravnadzor. The regulatory agency with the longest standard review time—900 days—is the Chinese FDA.
The shortest median time to new drug approval in 2015 was 230 days, for the UK’s MHRA. The longest was 834 days, for the Brazilian Health Surveillance Agency.
The highest NDA review fees were those charged by the US FDA—$2.3 million. The lowest were those charged by India’s CDSCO—50,000 Indian rupees or about USD$1000.
The researchers noted that these data suggest products are being evaluated via different processes and according to different standards, which makes it challenging for pharmaceutical companies to develop drugs for simultaneous submission to all regulatory authorities.
Therefore, a harmonization of approval requirements and processes could significantly improve efficiency.
“Patients would profit especially since new drugs would be available faster and at lower prices,” said study author Thomas D. Szucs, MD, PhD, of the University of Basel in Switzerland.
“This suggests that companies and authorities should strengthen their international collaboration and communicate better with each other.” 
*Some data were missing for most of the 12 agencies studied.
A new study has revealed substantial differences between health authorities in different regions of the world.
A pair of researchers compared 12 different regulatory authorities responsible for approving drugs and medical products.
The researchers collected data* on annual budgets, new drug approvals per year, numbers of reviewers, standard and median review times, fees for new drug applications (NDAs), and other measurements.
The results were published in Nature Reviews Drug Discovery.
For the 2015 fiscal year, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) had the highest budget—$1.19 billion—and India’s Central Drugs Standard Control Organization (CDSCO) had the lowest—$26 million.
In 2016, the FDA again had the highest budget—$1.23 billion—while Health Canada and Switzerland’s SwissMedic had the lowest—$108 million.
In 2016, the European Medicines Agency (EMA) had the highest number of reviewers—4500—and SwissMedic had the lowest—60. (Data from 2015 were not included.)
In 2015, Japan’s Pharmaceuticals and Medical Devices Agency had the highest number of NDA submissions—127—and Health Canada had the lowest—27. Meanwhile, the Chinese FDA had the highest number of new drug approvals—72—and India’s CDSCO had the lowest—17.
The UK’s Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) technically had the most new drug approvals in 2015, at 146, but not all of these were unique, as the number included all decentralized applications, both with the UK as the reference member state and approvals from concerned member states.
In 2016, the EMA had the highest number of NDA submissions—68—and Health Canada had the lowest—25. Singapore’s Health Sciences Authority had the highest number of new drug approvals—72—while the US FDA and India’s CDSCO had the lowest—22.
The shortest standard review period was 210 days. This is the standard for the EMA, the UK’s MHRA, and Russia’s Roszdravnadzor. The regulatory agency with the longest standard review time—900 days—is the Chinese FDA.
The shortest median time to new drug approval in 2015 was 230 days, for the UK’s MHRA. The longest was 834 days, for the Brazilian Health Surveillance Agency.
The highest NDA review fees were those charged by the US FDA—$2.3 million. The lowest were those charged by India’s CDSCO—50,000 Indian rupees or about USD$1000.
The researchers noted that these data suggest products are being evaluated via different processes and according to different standards, which makes it challenging for pharmaceutical companies to develop drugs for simultaneous submission to all regulatory authorities.
Therefore, a harmonization of approval requirements and processes could significantly improve efficiency.
“Patients would profit especially since new drugs would be available faster and at lower prices,” said study author Thomas D. Szucs, MD, PhD, of the University of Basel in Switzerland.
“This suggests that companies and authorities should strengthen their international collaboration and communicate better with each other.”
*Some data were missing for most of the 12 agencies studied.
A new study has revealed substantial differences between health authorities in different regions of the world.
A pair of researchers compared 12 different regulatory authorities responsible for approving drugs and medical products.
The researchers collected data* on annual budgets, new drug approvals per year, numbers of reviewers, standard and median review times, fees for new drug applications (NDAs), and other measurements.
The results were published in Nature Reviews Drug Discovery.
For the 2015 fiscal year, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) had the highest budget—$1.19 billion—and India’s Central Drugs Standard Control Organization (CDSCO) had the lowest—$26 million.
In 2016, the FDA again had the highest budget—$1.23 billion—while Health Canada and Switzerland’s SwissMedic had the lowest—$108 million.
In 2016, the European Medicines Agency (EMA) had the highest number of reviewers—4500—and SwissMedic had the lowest—60. (Data from 2015 were not included.)
In 2015, Japan’s Pharmaceuticals and Medical Devices Agency had the highest number of NDA submissions—127—and Health Canada had the lowest—27. Meanwhile, the Chinese FDA had the highest number of new drug approvals—72—and India’s CDSCO had the lowest—17.
The UK’s Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) technically had the most new drug approvals in 2015, at 146, but not all of these were unique, as the number included all decentralized applications, both with the UK as the reference member state and approvals from concerned member states.
In 2016, the EMA had the highest number of NDA submissions—68—and Health Canada had the lowest—25. Singapore’s Health Sciences Authority had the highest number of new drug approvals—72—while the US FDA and India’s CDSCO had the lowest—22.
The shortest standard review period was 210 days. This is the standard for the EMA, the UK’s MHRA, and Russia’s Roszdravnadzor. The regulatory agency with the longest standard review time—900 days—is the Chinese FDA.
The shortest median time to new drug approval in 2015 was 230 days, for the UK’s MHRA. The longest was 834 days, for the Brazilian Health Surveillance Agency.
The highest NDA review fees were those charged by the US FDA—$2.3 million. The lowest were those charged by India’s CDSCO—50,000 Indian rupees or about USD$1000.
The researchers noted that these data suggest products are being evaluated via different processes and according to different standards, which makes it challenging for pharmaceutical companies to develop drugs for simultaneous submission to all regulatory authorities.
Therefore, a harmonization of approval requirements and processes could significantly improve efficiency.
“Patients would profit especially since new drugs would be available faster and at lower prices,” said study author Thomas D. Szucs, MD, PhD, of the University of Basel in Switzerland.
“This suggests that companies and authorities should strengthen their international collaboration and communicate better with each other.”
*Some data were missing for most of the 12 agencies studied.