Regulatory approval time for hormonal contraception in Canada, the United States and the United Kingdom, 2000-2015: a retrospective data analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Access to a wide range of contraceptive methods improves prevention of unintended pregnancy by ensuring the best method fit for each individual. We compared approval times of new hormonal contraceptives by Health Canada, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), and the UK Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency (MHRA). METHODS: We obtained dates of applications to Health Canada, the FDA and the MHRA for contraceptive methods approved from January 2000 to January 2015. We used public data sources and direct correspondence, and excluded generic versions of previously approved drugs. The primary outcome of interest was median time to approval for novel hormonal contraceptives. Secondary outcomes included the median time to approval for all hormonal contraceptives and the number of approved hormonal contraceptives comparing countries studied, as well as the median time for approval of novel compared with nonnovel hormonal contraceptives within each country. RESULTS: = 0.03). The median time to approval for all contraceptives in Canada was 529.5 (interquartile range [IQR] 420.8 to 784.0) days, compared with 396.0 (IQR 308.0 to 594.5) days in the US and 341.0 (IQR 244.8 to 512.2) days in the UK. No subdermal implant contraceptives are approved in Canada. INTERPRETATION: Canadian women wait longer for novel contraceptive methods and have fewer options. Canada could improve population health by addressing the regulatory barriers associated with the unmet need for contraception. Facilitation for approval of a contraceptive implant, and improvement to prolonged novel drug approval times, could support Canadians to plan and space their pregnancies.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".