
95% of researchers rate our articles as excellent or good
Learn more about the work of our research integrity team to safeguard the quality of each article we publish.
Find out more
ORIGINAL RESEARCH article
Front. Med.
Sec. Regulatory Science
Volume 12 - 2025 | doi: 10.3389/fmed.2025.1519719
This article is part of the Research Topic The Changing Focus of Regulatory Frameworks Around the Globe and the Opportunities for Harmonization View all 8 articles
The final, formatted version of the article will be published soon.
You have multiple emails registered with Frontiers:
Please enter your email address:
If you already have an account, please login
You don't have a Frontiers account ? You can register here
Introduction: Independent assessments of blood regulatory systems, facilitated by tools such as the WHO's Global Benchmarking Tool (GBT) plus Blood expedites development of National Regulatory Authorites (NRAs) and thus promotes increased access to safe, effective, and quality blood, blood components and products. The aim of this study was to assess and compare the status of implementation and performance of the regulatory functions for registration and marketing authorisation as well as the system for approval of blood, blood components and plasma for fractionation or processes.We did this by conducting assisted self-benchmarking in 12 African countries using the GBT plus Blood (registration and marketing authorisation function, 34 sub-indicators and approval of blood, blood components and plasma for fractionation or processes function, 24 sub-indicators). Comparative assessments of WHO-designated maturity level 3 (ML3) NRAs for medicines and vaccines against nondesignated NRAs were made.The percentage of implemented sub-indicators was higher for the registration and marketing authorisation function with an average implementation score of 73% (range: 51 -92%) compared to the approval of blood, blood components and plasma for fractionation or processes function which had an average implementation score of 45% (range: 6 -65%). The comparison of group averages for the ML3designated NRAs against the non-designated NRAs revealed a higher score 91% (range: 71 -100%) for ML3-designated NRAs as opposed to a lower score of 71% (range: 49 -100%) for the non-designated NRAs for the registration and marketing authorisation function. This pattern, however, was not observed for the comparison of group averages for the approval of blood, blood components and plasma for fractionation or processes function where the ML3-designated NRAs scored 47% (range 19 -72%) against 46% (range 23 -88%) for the non ML3-designated NRAs.Most of the NRAs excelled in implementing sub-indicators for the registration and marketing authorisation (of plasma-derived medicines) function. All NRAs exhibited notable flaws in regulating blood, blood components, plasma for fraction and approval of processes, indicating nascent regulatory frameworks. This study highlights the urgent need for WHO and African countries to prioritize formal benchmarking of NRAs using the GBT plus Blood to enhance their regulatory capacities in blood and blood product regulation.
Keywords: blood and blood products, Global Benchmarking Tool, Sub-Saharan African countries, availability of safe Blood, GHPP BloodTrain
Received: 30 Oct 2024; Accepted: 04 Apr 2025.
Copyright: © 2025 Reinhardt, Samukange, Kluempers, Kafere, Heinrich, Atemnkeng, Khadem Broojerdi, Nkansah, Maboko, Nhukarume, Mutoti, Aineplan, Gardarsdottir and Mantel-Teeuwisse. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) or licensor are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
* Correspondence:
Jens Reinhardt, Paul-Ehrlich-Institut (PEI), Langen, Germany
Disclaimer: All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.
Research integrity at Frontiers
Learn more about the work of our research integrity team to safeguard the quality of each article we publish.