Table 2.
Perceived hurdles when using reliance
| % of positive responses | Number of responses | |
|---|---|---|
| Additional administrative requirements/documents including local M1 and other local documents | 66% | 27 |
| Unredacted assessment report | 54% | 22 |
| No clear reliance guideline or reliance not practiced | 51% | 21 |
| Strict interpretation of product sameness | 44% | 18 |
| No regulatory framework allowing reliance | 41% | 17 |
| No Confidentiality Agreement or Memorandum of Understanding between reference authority and relying authority | 34% | 14 |
| No clear understanding of reliance definition or no acceleration of timelines | 24% | 10 |
| Not enough Reference Authorities to apply reliance or restricted scope | 17% | 7 |
| Long submission lag time | 15% | 6 |
| Difficulties in accepting eCPP | 7% | 3 |
| None of the above or other | 2% | 1 |