Comparison of the review models and regulatory timelines of seven countries participating in the ECOWAS-MRH initiative: identifying opportunities for improvement

IntroductionNational regulatory medicines authorities (NRAs) are mandated to ensure timely access to high-quality, safe and efficacious medical products, primarily achieved through a marketing authorisation procedure established in each country. The aim of this study which was similar to that carrie...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Published in:Frontiers in Medicine
Main Authors: Mercy Owusu-Asante, Delese Mimi Darko, Seth Seaneke, Aminata Nacoulma, Oula Ibrahim Olivier Traore, Mojisola Christianah Adeyeye, Abayomi Akinyemi, Coulibaly Assane, Clarisse Épse Kaul Meledje Clamoungou, Oumy Kalsoum Ndao, Rokhaya Ndiaye Kande, James Komeh, Sheku Mansaray, Dalkoi Lamboni, Maheza Agba, Sam Salek, Stuart Walker
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: Frontiers Media S.A. 2025-07-01
Subjects:
Online Access:https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fmed.2025.1587761/full
_version_ 1849410671360344064
author Mercy Owusu-Asante
Mercy Owusu-Asante
Delese Mimi Darko
Seth Seaneke
Aminata Nacoulma
Oula Ibrahim Olivier Traore
Mojisola Christianah Adeyeye
Abayomi Akinyemi
Coulibaly Assane
Clarisse Épse Kaul Meledje Clamoungou
Oumy Kalsoum Ndao
Rokhaya Ndiaye Kande
James Komeh
Sheku Mansaray
Dalkoi Lamboni
Maheza Agba
Sam Salek
Sam Salek
Stuart Walker
Stuart Walker
author_facet Mercy Owusu-Asante
Mercy Owusu-Asante
Delese Mimi Darko
Seth Seaneke
Aminata Nacoulma
Oula Ibrahim Olivier Traore
Mojisola Christianah Adeyeye
Abayomi Akinyemi
Coulibaly Assane
Clarisse Épse Kaul Meledje Clamoungou
Oumy Kalsoum Ndao
Rokhaya Ndiaye Kande
James Komeh
Sheku Mansaray
Dalkoi Lamboni
Maheza Agba
Sam Salek
Sam Salek
Stuart Walker
Stuart Walker
author_sort Mercy Owusu-Asante
collection DOAJ
container_title Frontiers in Medicine
description IntroductionNational regulatory medicines authorities (NRAs) are mandated to ensure timely access to high-quality, safe and efficacious medical products, primarily achieved through a marketing authorisation procedure established in each country. The aim of this study which was similar to that carried out in the SADC and EAC regions, was to assess and compare the review models and regulatory timelines of seven of the national medicines regulatory authorities (NRAs) of the Economic Community of West African States-Medicines Regulatory Harmonization (ECOWAS- MRH) initiative, Burkina Faso, Cote d’Ivoire, Ghana, Nigeria, Senegal, Sierra Leone and Togo, in order to identify opportunities for improvement. The NRAs were included in the study based on their active participation in the regional initiative.MethodsThe Optimising Efficiencies in Regulatory Agencies (OpERA) questionnaire was completed by each of the NRAs to facilitate the assessment of the review models and regulatory timelines.ResultsThe authorities employ the three types of scientific review models, verification review (type 1), abridged review (type 2) and full review (type 3). Five of the NRAs deploy the fast track/priority review model in which a rapid assessment is carried out to obtain pharmacological, marketing/commercialisation, pharmacovigilance and additional clinical trial information. In Cote d’Ivoire, the priority review is used by the authority for WHO-prequalified medicines and stringent regulatory authority-approved medicines. Data requirements for the applications are essentially the same among the seven authorities. Applicants are required to provide a completed dossier in the common technical document format to support an application for marketing authorisation irrespective of the review model. Differences were noted with regard to comparison of the key features of the regulatory systems for medicines: as previously mentioned, five of the authorities required submission of a CPP with the application or before authorization. 25% of the review staff were physicians in five of the NRAs. Furthermore, procedures to allow the company response time to be measured and differentiated in the overall processing time were not available in Burkina Faso. In addition, there were differences reported in the targets for the key milestones in the full review process. These issues ultimately led to differences in the overall approval times for medicines that were processed via the full review pathway. The extent of the scientific review is dependent on the type of review model that is deployed in processing the application. Recommendations for improvement for the seven regulatory authorities include: publication of targets and timelines for key milestones; recognition of the ECOWAS-MRH initiative as a reference to expedite their approvals at the country level; and development of robust information technology systems.ConclusionThis comparative study of the review models and regulatory timelines of countries participating in the ECOWAS-MRH initiative has highlighted both the similarities among the authorities and also the differences to be addressed in order to improve upon the regulatory systems in these countries.
format Article
id doaj-art-702bf3fa992d425c847e2e3dde69d417
institution Directory of Open Access Journals
issn 2296-858X
language English
publishDate 2025-07-01
publisher Frontiers Media S.A.
record_format Article
spelling doaj-art-702bf3fa992d425c847e2e3dde69d4172025-08-20T03:49:56ZengFrontiers Media S.A.Frontiers in Medicine2296-858X2025-07-011210.3389/fmed.2025.15877611587761Comparison of the review models and regulatory timelines of seven countries participating in the ECOWAS-MRH initiative: identifying opportunities for improvementMercy Owusu-Asante0Mercy Owusu-Asante1Delese Mimi Darko2Seth Seaneke3Aminata Nacoulma4Oula Ibrahim Olivier Traore5Mojisola Christianah Adeyeye6Abayomi Akinyemi7Coulibaly Assane8Clarisse Épse Kaul Meledje Clamoungou9Oumy Kalsoum Ndao10Rokhaya Ndiaye Kande11James Komeh12Sheku Mansaray13Dalkoi Lamboni14Maheza Agba15Sam Salek16Sam Salek17Stuart Walker18Stuart Walker19School of Life and Medical Sciences, University of Hertfordshire, Hatfield, United KingdomFood and Drugs Authority, Accra, GhanaFood and Drugs Authority, Accra, GhanaFood and Drugs Authority, Accra, GhanaNational Pharmaceutical Regulatory Agency, Ouagadougou, Burkina FasoNational Pharmaceutical Regulatory Agency, Ouagadougou, Burkina FasoNational Agency for Food and Drug Administration and Control of Nigeria, Abuja, NigeriaNational Agency for Food and Drug Administration and Control of Nigeria, Abuja, NigeriaAutorite Ivoirienne de Regulation Pharmaceutique (AIRP), Abidjan, Cote d’IvoireAutorite Ivoirienne de Regulation Pharmaceutique (AIRP), Abidjan, Cote d’IvoireSenegalese Pharmaceutical Regulatory Agency (I’Agence Senegalaise de Reglementation Pharmaceutique-ARP), Dakar, SenegalSenegalese Pharmaceutical Regulatory Agency (I’Agence Senegalaise de Reglementation Pharmaceutique-ARP), Dakar, SenegalPharmacy Board of Sierra Leone, Freetown, Sierra LeonePharmacy Board of Sierra Leone, Freetown, Sierra LeoneMedicine and Laboratories-Togo, Lome, TogoMedicine and Laboratories-Togo, Lome, TogoSchool of Life and Medical Sciences, University of Hertfordshire, Hatfield, United KingdomInstitute of Medicines Development, London, United KingdomSchool of Life and Medical Sciences, University of Hertfordshire, Hatfield, United Kingdom0Centre for Innovation in Regulatory Science, University of Hertfordshire, London, United KingdomIntroductionNational regulatory medicines authorities (NRAs) are mandated to ensure timely access to high-quality, safe and efficacious medical products, primarily achieved through a marketing authorisation procedure established in each country. The aim of this study which was similar to that carried out in the SADC and EAC regions, was to assess and compare the review models and regulatory timelines of seven of the national medicines regulatory authorities (NRAs) of the Economic Community of West African States-Medicines Regulatory Harmonization (ECOWAS- MRH) initiative, Burkina Faso, Cote d’Ivoire, Ghana, Nigeria, Senegal, Sierra Leone and Togo, in order to identify opportunities for improvement. The NRAs were included in the study based on their active participation in the regional initiative.MethodsThe Optimising Efficiencies in Regulatory Agencies (OpERA) questionnaire was completed by each of the NRAs to facilitate the assessment of the review models and regulatory timelines.ResultsThe authorities employ the three types of scientific review models, verification review (type 1), abridged review (type 2) and full review (type 3). Five of the NRAs deploy the fast track/priority review model in which a rapid assessment is carried out to obtain pharmacological, marketing/commercialisation, pharmacovigilance and additional clinical trial information. In Cote d’Ivoire, the priority review is used by the authority for WHO-prequalified medicines and stringent regulatory authority-approved medicines. Data requirements for the applications are essentially the same among the seven authorities. Applicants are required to provide a completed dossier in the common technical document format to support an application for marketing authorisation irrespective of the review model. Differences were noted with regard to comparison of the key features of the regulatory systems for medicines: as previously mentioned, five of the authorities required submission of a CPP with the application or before authorization. 25% of the review staff were physicians in five of the NRAs. Furthermore, procedures to allow the company response time to be measured and differentiated in the overall processing time were not available in Burkina Faso. In addition, there were differences reported in the targets for the key milestones in the full review process. These issues ultimately led to differences in the overall approval times for medicines that were processed via the full review pathway. The extent of the scientific review is dependent on the type of review model that is deployed in processing the application. Recommendations for improvement for the seven regulatory authorities include: publication of targets and timelines for key milestones; recognition of the ECOWAS-MRH initiative as a reference to expedite their approvals at the country level; and development of robust information technology systems.ConclusionThis comparative study of the review models and regulatory timelines of countries participating in the ECOWAS-MRH initiative has highlighted both the similarities among the authorities and also the differences to be addressed in order to improve upon the regulatory systems in these countries.https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fmed.2025.1587761/fullAfrican Medicines Agency (AMA)Economic Community of West African States Medicines Regulatory Harmonisation (ECOWAS-MRH)genericsgood review practicesnew active substancesregulatory reliance
spellingShingle Mercy Owusu-Asante
Mercy Owusu-Asante
Delese Mimi Darko
Seth Seaneke
Aminata Nacoulma
Oula Ibrahim Olivier Traore
Mojisola Christianah Adeyeye
Abayomi Akinyemi
Coulibaly Assane
Clarisse Épse Kaul Meledje Clamoungou
Oumy Kalsoum Ndao
Rokhaya Ndiaye Kande
James Komeh
Sheku Mansaray
Dalkoi Lamboni
Maheza Agba
Sam Salek
Sam Salek
Stuart Walker
Stuart Walker
Comparison of the review models and regulatory timelines of seven countries participating in the ECOWAS-MRH initiative: identifying opportunities for improvement
African Medicines Agency (AMA)
Economic Community of West African States Medicines Regulatory Harmonisation (ECOWAS-MRH)
generics
good review practices
new active substances
regulatory reliance
title Comparison of the review models and regulatory timelines of seven countries participating in the ECOWAS-MRH initiative: identifying opportunities for improvement
title_full Comparison of the review models and regulatory timelines of seven countries participating in the ECOWAS-MRH initiative: identifying opportunities for improvement
title_fullStr Comparison of the review models and regulatory timelines of seven countries participating in the ECOWAS-MRH initiative: identifying opportunities for improvement
title_full_unstemmed Comparison of the review models and regulatory timelines of seven countries participating in the ECOWAS-MRH initiative: identifying opportunities for improvement
title_short Comparison of the review models and regulatory timelines of seven countries participating in the ECOWAS-MRH initiative: identifying opportunities for improvement
title_sort comparison of the review models and regulatory timelines of seven countries participating in the ecowas mrh initiative identifying opportunities for improvement
topic African Medicines Agency (AMA)
Economic Community of West African States Medicines Regulatory Harmonisation (ECOWAS-MRH)
generics
good review practices
new active substances
regulatory reliance
url https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fmed.2025.1587761/full
work_keys_str_mv AT mercyowusuasante comparisonofthereviewmodelsandregulatorytimelinesofsevencountriesparticipatingintheecowasmrhinitiativeidentifyingopportunitiesforimprovement
AT mercyowusuasante comparisonofthereviewmodelsandregulatorytimelinesofsevencountriesparticipatingintheecowasmrhinitiativeidentifyingopportunitiesforimprovement
AT delesemimidarko comparisonofthereviewmodelsandregulatorytimelinesofsevencountriesparticipatingintheecowasmrhinitiativeidentifyingopportunitiesforimprovement
AT sethseaneke comparisonofthereviewmodelsandregulatorytimelinesofsevencountriesparticipatingintheecowasmrhinitiativeidentifyingopportunitiesforimprovement
AT aminatanacoulma comparisonofthereviewmodelsandregulatorytimelinesofsevencountriesparticipatingintheecowasmrhinitiativeidentifyingopportunitiesforimprovement
AT oulaibrahimoliviertraore comparisonofthereviewmodelsandregulatorytimelinesofsevencountriesparticipatingintheecowasmrhinitiativeidentifyingopportunitiesforimprovement
AT mojisolachristianahadeyeye comparisonofthereviewmodelsandregulatorytimelinesofsevencountriesparticipatingintheecowasmrhinitiativeidentifyingopportunitiesforimprovement
AT abayomiakinyemi comparisonofthereviewmodelsandregulatorytimelinesofsevencountriesparticipatingintheecowasmrhinitiativeidentifyingopportunitiesforimprovement
AT coulibalyassane comparisonofthereviewmodelsandregulatorytimelinesofsevencountriesparticipatingintheecowasmrhinitiativeidentifyingopportunitiesforimprovement
AT clarisseepsekaulmeledjeclamoungou comparisonofthereviewmodelsandregulatorytimelinesofsevencountriesparticipatingintheecowasmrhinitiativeidentifyingopportunitiesforimprovement
AT oumykalsoumndao comparisonofthereviewmodelsandregulatorytimelinesofsevencountriesparticipatingintheecowasmrhinitiativeidentifyingopportunitiesforimprovement
AT rokhayandiayekande comparisonofthereviewmodelsandregulatorytimelinesofsevencountriesparticipatingintheecowasmrhinitiativeidentifyingopportunitiesforimprovement
AT jameskomeh comparisonofthereviewmodelsandregulatorytimelinesofsevencountriesparticipatingintheecowasmrhinitiativeidentifyingopportunitiesforimprovement
AT shekumansaray comparisonofthereviewmodelsandregulatorytimelinesofsevencountriesparticipatingintheecowasmrhinitiativeidentifyingopportunitiesforimprovement
AT dalkoilamboni comparisonofthereviewmodelsandregulatorytimelinesofsevencountriesparticipatingintheecowasmrhinitiativeidentifyingopportunitiesforimprovement
AT mahezaagba comparisonofthereviewmodelsandregulatorytimelinesofsevencountriesparticipatingintheecowasmrhinitiativeidentifyingopportunitiesforimprovement
AT samsalek comparisonofthereviewmodelsandregulatorytimelinesofsevencountriesparticipatingintheecowasmrhinitiativeidentifyingopportunitiesforimprovement
AT samsalek comparisonofthereviewmodelsandregulatorytimelinesofsevencountriesparticipatingintheecowasmrhinitiativeidentifyingopportunitiesforimprovement
AT stuartwalker comparisonofthereviewmodelsandregulatorytimelinesofsevencountriesparticipatingintheecowasmrhinitiativeidentifyingopportunitiesforimprovement
AT stuartwalker comparisonofthereviewmodelsandregulatorytimelinesofsevencountriesparticipatingintheecowasmrhinitiativeidentifyingopportunitiesforimprovement