2012.atmindex.org
WHO Drug Information Vol. 25, No. 3, 2011
WHO Prequalification of
Ensuring quality medicines: a decade of prequalification
Reflections from A. J. van Zyl, First Programme Manager for the
WHO Prequalification of Medicines Programme
In March 2001, United Nations partners
operating procedures (SOPs). Prequalifi-
initiated a project, managed by the World cation (PQ) was based on existing WHO
Health Organization, to facilitate access
norms and standards approved by the
to quality medicines used in the treat-
ECSPP. In those cases where WHO did
ment of HIV/AIDS. Partnering with WHO
not have guidelines, relevant guidelines
were UNICEF, UNAIDS, and UNFPA. The from ICH were used. A web site was also
World Bank also supported this project.
established to disseminate PQ vision,
The first manager for the programme was mission, procedures, guidelines, training
appointed by WHO on a six-month con-
material, results and information (1).
tract to establish, implement and manage
the pilot project. The project was prin-
The initial focus was to prequalify medi-
cipally funded by donations and grants
cines used in the treatment of HIV/
from Member States.
AIDS. It was estimated that the number
of people needing antiretroviral (ARV)
Objectives of the WHO Prequalification of therapy in 2003 was in the range of
Medicines Programme (PQP) were to:
100 000 with an ARV therapy coverage
of only around 2%. It was further
1. Propose a list of prequalified products
estimated that less than 10% of people
manufactured in sites that meet WHO
in most African countries had access to
norms and standards.
ARV treatment (2). Figure 1 shows the
number of deaths per 100 000 in the US
2. Follow-up on products and manufactur- population in the period 1982–1993 (3).
ing facilities for quality issues.
3. Ensure that prequalification and update Later on, due to the pressing need for
of the original approved list is carried
quality medicines in other disease areas,
out periodically and that variations and
the project was expanded to include
changes are correctly controlled.
products used in the treatment of tubercu-
losis (TB) and malaria.
4. Assist national drug regulatory autho-
rities to build capacity in assessment,
Prequalifying medicines is achieved
inspection and control of medicines for
through an extensive evaluation pro-
priority diseases.
cedure that consists of assessment of
product data and information that are
In designing the project, a quality sys-
voluntarily submitted by interested appli-
tem was established consisting of a
cants and manufacturers expressing their
Procedure for Prequalification that was
interest to participate in the project. This
adopted by the WHO Expert Committee
is followed by inspection of manufactur-
on Specifications for Pharmaceutical
ing and testing sites. No fees have been
Preparations (ECSPP), various guide-
charged by WHO since the beginning of
lines, norms and standards, and standard prequalification but this practice is under
WHO Prequalification of Medicines Programme
WHO Drug Information Vol. 25, No. 3, 2011
Figure 1: USA deaths per 100 000 population in the period 1982– 1993
National Vital Statistics
* Provisional Data
review. Sites are inspected to verify data
The organization chart in 2011 comprises:
submitted in the product dossiers and
to assess compliance with WHO good
• one PQP manager
manufacturing practices (GMP), good
clinical practices (GCP) and other appro-
• one head of inspections with five in-
priate guidelines.
• one head of assessments with seven
Reasons for initiating the PQ pilot project
was concern about low quality products
circulating in the international market,
• eight support staff
the prevalence of spurious products and
• one person each for liaison, capacity
also as a result of the recommendation
building and training, and sampling and
in a report from a group of independ-
monitoring (which includes prequalifica-
ent experts. The report found that many
tion of quality control laboratories).
procurement organizations had no, or
very limited, quality assurance systems in Expansion of the programme after 2006
place to ensure that good quality products was possible due to the financial support
from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.
Today, the programme is largely financed
by UNITAID but is seeking a broader
In terms of staff appointments, the PQP
team slowly grew from one manager in
2001 to a manager plus one coordina-
External assessor group
tor for assessments and one assistant
From the initial one staff member with six
during the first two years. One inspector
external assessors present at the assess-
was seconded from the French medi-
ment meeting in June 2001, the group
cines regulatory agency in 2003, and in
has grown over the past ten years to
subsequent years the team expanded to
include on average seven internal as-
include one manager, a coordinator for
sessors and more than 20 external
assessments and three inspectors.
assessors at a group session.
WHO Drug Information Vol. 25, No. 3, 2011
WHO Prequalification of Medicines Programme
Complaints on prequalified products
Data and specifications are submitted
that are received in PQP are logged and
and assessed by teams of assessors
investigated by the inspectors. Inspec-
from national medicines regulatory autho- tors and assessors must comply with the
rities and WHO staff. Data and specifi-
confidentiality and conflict of interest rules
cations include but are not limited to the
active pharmaceutical ingredient (API),
formulae, manufacturing process, stability Inspectors publish a quarterly newsletter
(appropriate packaging and suitable for
available on the PQP web site as well
the intended market) and bio-equivalence as submitting articles to the
WHO Phar-
data (for generic products).
maceuticals Newsletter and
WHO Drug
Information (see "Further reading" on
Group assessment sessions are held
every two months at the UNICEF offices
in Copenhagen. Requirements for
product data and information have also
Field sampling and testing projects have
intensified over the years. In 2011, the
been carried out by PQP in order to moni-
recommendation is that manufacturers
tor the quality of medicines (both WHO-
should submit a dossier in the common
prequalified and non-WHO prequalified)
technical document (CTD) format (4–6).
procured by UN agencies (8). Through
To build capacity in developing countries, cooperation with medicines regulatory
a unique three-month rotational post was authorities (MRAs), these projects also
established in the area of dossier assess- contribute to national quality control of
ment in 2006. Since then, 14 developing
medicines, to strengthening of health
country regulators from nine countries
systems and capacity building. Samples
have benefited from the arrangement.
are collected by MRA staff and tested
at WHO-prequalified laboratories and
During assessment, multisource (generic) results are published. Several reports and
drug products are expected to satisfy the publications in scientific journals have be-
same quality standards as those appli-
come available over the ten-year period.
cable to the originator/reference product.
In addition, assurance has to be provided
Brief overview
that they are clinically interchangeable
After the initial establishment of the
with equivalent originator products (4).
project in 2001, the first list of prequalified
products was published in March 2002.
The inspection unit operates in accor-
The project expanded to include prequali-
dance with an established quality system fication of quality control laboratories and
consisting of documented SOPs, formats tuberculosis and malaria medicines in
for reports and letters, a training pro-
2003–2004. Due to inspection findings of
gramme and related aspects as recom-
non-compliance with GCP, some products
mended in guidelines (7). Inspections
were withdrawn from the list in 2004. In
are performed at the facilities of finished
order to improve patient compliance and
product manufacturers, API manufac-
ease of dosing, fixed dose combinations
turers, quality control laboratories and
were developed. PQP was instrumental in
clinical sites including contract research
providing the corresponding guideline. As
organizations (CROs). Feedback on the
the applicant of a prequalified medicinal
implementation of norms and standards
product invariably makes changes to a
is given to the relative unit in WHO and
supplied product during the product's life
recommendations are made for the
cycle, a variation guideline was also de-
development of new GMP guidelines (or
veloped to ensure appropriate oversight
revision of existing ones) as appropriate.
of such changes.
WHO Prequalification of Medicines Programme
WHO Drug Information Vol. 25, No. 3, 2011
Table 1: Summary of main events
Year Event
March: Appointment of first Manager for PQ (Dr AJ van Zyl). First expression of interest (EOI)
published. Procedure for prequalification adopted by ECSPP.
First assessment of product dossiers and inspections.
First list of prequalified products published - March.
Global publicity - New York Times and Wall Street Journal (9).
Procedure for Prequalification of Quality Control Laboratories. Expand inspections to
include API manufacturers. Donor: Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation
Expand inspections to include CROs. WHO withdraws products form the List of PQ products
due to non-compliance with GCP (10).
Start the Programme of prequalification of quality control laboratories (restricted to Africa).
Annual report published. Fixed Dose Combination guideline TRS 929, 2005.
Annual report published. Facilitate a new guideline for Contract Research Organizations.
Publication of the Variations guideline TRS 943 Annex 6. Facilitate development of the
guideline on comparative dissolution for biowaiver applications.Development, adoption and
publication of a Model Quality Assurance System for Procurement Agencies, TRS 937, 2006.
Donors: Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and UNITAID.
Annual report published. Appointment of the second Manager for PQP (Dr R Kiivet).
Appointment of the Head of inspections, and Head of Assessments.
Suspension of Viracept (Roche). Launching the PQP web site in Chinese.
Implementation of the bio-waiver procedure. Contract PricewaterhouseCoopers to develop
a business plan. First NOC issued by PQP - Sandoz SA.
First suspension of products - Sandoz SA. NOS issued Wyeth Pakistan.
First training workshop on pharmaceutical development with focus on pediatric formulations.
Third Manager for PQP appointed (Mr A Gould). First inspection newsletter published
NOC issued to Matrix. Undertake a manufacturer survey.
Establish a joint assessment programme with EAC. Establish a collaborative procedure
for inspections. Start inspections for comparative dissolution (bio-waiver applications).
Prequalify the first influenza product. Issue NOC - BBRC. Implement the prequalification of API
procedure and first EOI published. Manufacturer's meeting in Copenhagen .
List 3 products in the list of prequalified APIs. Manufacturers' meeting in Geneva.
Issue NOC to Themis and Amsal. Publication on malaria medicines quality survey.
Confidentiality agreement with EDQM signed.
As the PQP become successful, it was
Drug Administration (FDA), PQP and the
extended to include HIV/AIDS, TB and
Quality Assurance and Safety: Medicines
malaria, reproductive health products,
Unit of WHO and in 2011 between the
zinc sulphate for the treatment of diar-
European Directorate for the Quality of
rhoea in children, products used in treat-
Medicines (EDQM) and WHO.
ment of influenza and diethylcarbamazine
Within the biopharmaceutical classifica-
tion system, PQP assisted in the devel-
Mutual confidentiality agreements were
opment of a guideline on comparative
signed in 2005 between the US Food and dissolution for biowaiver applications.
WHO Drug Information Vol. 25, No. 3, 2011
WHO Prequalification of Medicines Programme
Due to cases of non-compliance identi-
the PQP web site in Chinese followed, as
fied during inspections at CROs, it was
well as implementation of the biowaiver
decided to facilitate the development of
procedure. All NOC and NOS were also
an additional guideline for CROs to assist published. In keeping interested parties
in better understanding the application of informed of the activities of PQP, an in-
GCP for bioequivalence studies.
spection newsletter was regularly pub-
lished as well as articles in publications.
Due to reporting of low quality repro-
To further ensure transparency and better
ductive health products and problems
serve clients, PQP undertook a manufac-
in procuring good quality products, PQP
turer's survey in 2009.
expanded its scope and included repro-
ductive health products within the PQP in In an effort to expedite registration of
cooperation with UNFPA.
prequalified products, prevent duplication,
and promote harmonization, PQP estab-
In September 2008, the USA issued an
lished and implemented a joint assess-
import alert against Ranbaxy, a phar-
ment programme with the East African
maceutical company based in India. As
Community (EAC) for product dossiers
there were several of their products listed and a collaborative procedure for inspec-
in PQP, a joint inspection with Canada,
tions (joint inspections and recognition
Australia and the United Kingdom was
of inspection reports among regulators).
undertaken at Ranbaxy to investigate
Both initiatives deserve more in depth
impact. At that time, to respond to World
clarification. It is anticipated that activities
Health Assembly Resolution 57.14 and
will be described in more detail in future
the request by Member States and inter-
national procurement organizations to
enhance transparency, PQP published a
With an increasing number of product
first Notice of Concern (NOC) for manu-
dossiers containing comparative disso-
facturing sites. Provision was also made
lution data, the inspection unit began
for issuing Notices of Suspension (NOS)
inspections at sites to verify reliability of
for products. Resolution 57.14 requested dissolution data and GMP compliance
WHO, among other actions to "
ensure
(biowaiver applications).
that the prequalification review process
and the results of inspection and assess-
A major step forward in assisting MRAs to
ment reports of the listed products, aside obtain information on the quality of APIs
from proprietary and confidential informa- and API manufacturing sites, was imple-
tion, are made publicly available".
mentation of the procedure for prequalifi-
cation of APIs in 2010. This procedure is
As a consequence, publication of WHO
based on the assessment of API Master
Public Inspection Reports (positive
Files (also known as a Drug Master Files)
outcomes of site inspections) and WHO
and inspection of the sites.
Public Assessment Reports (positive
outcomes of dossier assessment) and the In further attempting to ensure the quality
list of prequalified products provides the
of products purchased, a model qual-
public and regulators with extensive infor- ity assurance system for procurement
mation on the PQ evaluation of products
agencies was developed. This guideline
was adopted by the ECSPP and the
Interagency Pharmaceutical Coordina-
The structure of PQP changed in 2007
tion group (IPC) and is used by different
with the appointment of a new Pro-
organizations including the World Bank.
gramme Manager, appointment of a Head Following publication of the first Expres-
of Inspections, and a Head of Assess-
sion of Interest for HIV/AIDS products,
ments. In the same year, the launching of more than 90 product dossiers were
WHO Prequalification of Medicines Programme
WHO Drug Information Vol. 25, No. 3, 2011
Table 2: Number of inspections by site, per year
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011*
APIs 1 2 11 8 6 11 7 5 15
FPPs 6 23 20 22 18 19 26 27 27 38 26
QC labs 1 7 3 1 10 8 9 6
CROs 6 13 17 13 14 10 7 7
Total 6 23 21 31 42 47 46 62 52 59 53
* Up to 15 July 2011
received for assessment in the first group cess; question/problem resolution during
assessment session in Copenhagen. The assessment; consistency of membership
number of product dossiers submitted for in the team of assessors throughout the
assessment has varied from year to year, process, and local/national representation
and between disease groups.
in on-site inspection teams. Most manu-
facturers view PQP GMP requirements
Since 2001, more than 60 training
as more stringent than those of the US
workshops have been organized or co-
FDA or European Medicines Agency. The
organized in countries including Austria,
findings from this survey indicate that
Belgium, Brazil, China, Estonia, India,
pharmaceutical manufacturers consider
Kenya, Pakistan and Tanzania. Twenty
PQP to be a well-designed, well-executed
quality control laboratories (QCLs) have
programme. PQP assessors and inspec-
been prequalified and four sampling and
tors are meeting or exceeding manufactu-
testing projects have been undertaken.
rer expectations for service delivery in all
In 2008, PricewaterhouseCoopers was
appointed to assist in the development
Table 2 reflects the number of inspections
of a business plan. Recommendations
by site, over the years, including for APIs,
for improvement were made and it was
finished pharmaceutical products (FPPs),
calculated that the return on investment in CROs and quality control laboratories.
PQ was 170.1 in the period 2009–2013.
By 21 June 2011, a total of 253 finished
products had been prequalified by WHO.
Outcomes of the manufacturer survey
This included 190 HIV/AIDS products,
carried out in 2009 (11) were presented
31 TB; 17 malaria; seven influenza, and
to a manufacturers' meeting in Copenha-
eight RPH products.
gen in April 2010 and at the PQP Annual
Stakeholders meeting in 2011. The report
Conclusion
concluded that both PQP assessors and
The establishment and implementation of
inspectors are meeting or exceeding
a prequalification procedure for pharma-
manufacturer expectations for service
ceutical products, especially in the area
delivery. The structure of PQP generally
of HIV/AIDS, has significantly facilitated
delivers levels of service at, or above,
access to quality medicines. Moreover, it
those expected by manufacturers.
has also triggered harmonization between
quality assurance policies of various
However, the service process is falling
organizations involved in procurement of
short of manufacturer expectations with
medicines for the developing world such
respect to review/reply time for product
as the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuber-
dossiers; opportunities for in-person com- culosis and Malaria, UNFPA, UNITAID,
munication during the assessment pro-
WHO Drug Information Vol. 25, No. 3, 2011
WHO Prequalification of Medicines Programme
Table 3: Number of products and quality control laboratories
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
0 61 13 13 17 33 13 29 24 24
TB 0 0 6 2 0 0 5 5 7 5
RPH 0 3 5
Zn sulphate 0 0
DEC 0 0
Total 0 61 19 17 18 35 21 40 44 36
QC labs
Several publications reflect the increase
lable. Where only 13% of patients were
in number of patients on antiretroviral
able to afford therapy in 1996, the num-
treatment over the last decade, as well as ber increased to 44% in 2003. The most
the reduction in price of these medicines
common ARV regimen was 3FDC (lami-
(see figure 2 below) (12). For example, in vudine, stavudine, nervirapine) which was
2005 it was reported that the cost of high- administered to 56% of patients receiving
ly active antiretroviral therapy (HAART)
HAART (13). This is supported by the
decreased from US$ 778 per month in
Global Fund's quality assurance policy
1996 to US$ 100 per month in 2000, and (supporting procurement of prequalified
further to US$ 33 per month in 2003 after products) and Global Fund reports on
the first generic ARVs were made avai-
procurement in countries (14).
Figure 2: Number of people receiving ARV therapy
North Africa and Middle East
East, South and South-East Asia
Europe and Central Asia
Latin America and the Caribbean
Sub-Saharan Africa
People receiving antiretroviral therapy (in m 05
WHO Prequalification of Medicines Programme
WHO Drug Information Vol. 25, No. 3, 2011
According to a report from Médecins
3. US deaths per 100 000 population in the
sans Frontières (MSF), the price of FDC
period 1982–1993 at http://commons.wikime-
lamivudine + nevirapine + stavudine per
patient per year dropped significantly
from 2000–2001 and from 2008–2009.
4. World Health Organization. Marketing
authorization of pharmaceutical products with
The originator cost was US$ 10439 in
special reference to multisource products.
2000, US$ 727 in 2001, US$ 331 in 2008 WHO/DMP/RGS/98.5 9 (1989).
and US$ 531 in 2009. The corresponding
generic product cost was US$ 2767, US$ 5. World Health Organization. Report of the
295, US$ 87 and US$ 80 in the corres-
Expert Committee on Specifications for Phar-
ponding years. The price dropped by 99% maceutical Preparations. Guidelines on sub-
from 2001 to 2010 (15, 16).
mission of documentation for prequalification
of innovator finished pharmaceutical products
approved by stringent regulatory authorities.
The majority of products on the list of
Annex 11.
Technical Report Series, No. 961,
prequalified medicines are multisource/
generic products. Generic manufacturers
are the main suppliers of essential medi-
6. World Health Organization. Report of
cines in developing countries: 67% of
the Expert Committee on Specifications for
medicines produced in India are exported Pharmaceutical Preparations. Guidelines on
to developing countries. Also, according
submission of documentation for a multisource
to PEPFAR – 73% of ARVs delivered in
(generic) finished product: general format:
preparation of product dossiers in common
focus countries are generic medicines
technical document format. Annex 15.
Techni-
cal Report Series, No. 961, 2011.
7. World Health Organization. Report of
The prequalification programme has fa-
the Expert Committee on Specifications for
cilitated access to quality medicines and
Pharmaceutical Preparations. Quality systems
created a mechanism for better medi-
requirements for national good manufactur-
ing practice inspectorates. Annex 8.
Technical
cines at better prices. This was made
Report Series, No. 902, 2002.
possible by partners, donors, participat-
ing industry and the kind assistance of
8. World Health Organization. Expert Commit-
assessors and inspectors from many
tee on Specifications for Pharmaceutical Pre-
national medicines regulatory authorities. parations. Guidelines for sampling of pharma-
WHO PQP would like to express a sin-
ceutical products and related materials. Annex
cere thank you to all involved as well as
15.
Technical Report Series, No. 961, 2011.
supporting staff in PQP and within WHO. 9. McNeill, DG. New List of Safe AIDS Drugs,
The writer further wishes to thank all staff Despite Industry Lobby.
The New York Times.
members in WHO and in particular PQP
20 March 2002 at http://apps.who.int/prequal/
for their cooperation in the programme
Press&Media/ Prequalification Update
and their contribution to the writing of this
10. Alyman LK, McNeill, DG. UN Agency
Drops Two Drugs for AIDS Care Worldwide.
The New York Times, 16 June 2004, at http://
1. World Health Organization. Prequalification cation Update.
of Medicines Programme at http://www.who.
11. Interclarity Research and Consulting
Inc. at http://apps.who.int/prequal/trainingre-
2. Antiretroviral therapy coverage in sub-
Saharan Africa at http://www.who.int/hiv/data/
tations/Day_1/PQPSurvey.pdf and http://apps.
survey.pdf and http://apps.who.int/prequql/
WHO Drug Information Vol. 25, No. 3, 2011
WHO Prequalification of Medicines Programme
info_applicants/qclabs/monitoring_documents/ 3. Survey of service quality provided to manu-
facturers. Volume 24, No. 4, p. 293 (2010).
12. WHO, UNICEF, UNAIDS. Towards uni-
4. WHO initiates pilot prequalification of active
versal access: scaling up priority HIV/AIDS
pharmaceutical ingredients. Volume 24, No. 4,
interventions in the health sector. Progress
p. 297 (2010).
report 2009, p.55 at http://apps.who.int/pre-
5. Collaborative participation of national
inspectors in WHO prequalification. Volume
13. Kumarasamy N et al. The changing natu-
24, No. 3, p. 201 (2010).
ral history of HIV disease: before and after the
introduction of generic antiretroviral therapy in 6. Inspection news report. Volume 24, No. 3,
southern India.
Clinical Infectious Diseases,
p. 205 (2010).
7. Inspection of finished pharmaceutical pro-
14. The Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tubercu-
duct manufacturers. Volume 24, No. 2, p. 87.
losis and Malaria at http://www.theglobalfund.
8. Facts and figures for 2009. Volume 24,
15. Medecins sans Fontières (MSF).
Untan-
No. 1, p. 3 (2010).
gling the web at http://www.msfaccess.org/
9. Prequalification of quality control laborato-
ries. Volume 23, No. 4, p. 300 (2009).
16. Medecins sans Fontières (MSF).
Examples of the importance of India as the
10. WHO medicines prequalification: progress
"Pharmacy of the developing World" (2007) at in 2008. Volume 23, No. 1, p. 201 (2009).
11. WHO Prequalification: GMP deviations
17. The US President's Emergency Plan for
and suspension. Volume 22, No. 3, p. 203
AIDS Relief (PEPFAR) at http://www.pepfar.
12. WHO prequalification: progress in 2007.
Volume 22, No. 2, p. 79.
1. Dekker TG, van Zyl AJ, Gross O et al.
WHO Pharmaceuticals Newsletter
Ongoing monitoring of antiretroviral products
as part of WHO's Prequalification Project.
J
1. Inspection of manufacturing sites for active
Generic Med 2006;
3:96-105
pharmaceutica ingredients within the WHO
Prequalification of Medicines Programme.
2. Caudron JM et al. Substandard medicines
Number 1, p. 12 (2011).
in resource-poor settings: a problem that can
no longer be ignored.
Tropical Health and
2. Collaborative participation of inspectors
International Health Journal 2008;
13(8):1062.
from medicines regulatory authorities (MRAs)
in inspections coordinated by the
3. Strauch S, Jantratid E, Stahl M et al.
WHO Prequalification of Medicines Pro-
The biowaiver procedure: its application to
gramme. Number 3, p. 12 (2010).
antituberculosis products in the WHO Prequa-
lification Programme.
J Pharm Sci 2010:DOI
3. WHO Prequalification of Medicines Pro-
10.1002/jps.22349;Wiley Online Library at
gramme: Inspection of finished pharmaceuti-
cal product manufacturers to increase quality
of medicines. Number 2, p. 16 (2010).
WHO Drug Information
1. Facts and figures for 2010. Volume 25, No.
4. Prequalification of quality control laborato-
2, p. 101 (2011).
ries. Number 1, p. 22 (2010).
2. Inspection of API manufacturing sites.
5. Inspections of bio-equivalence studies.
Volume 25, No. 1, p. 24 (2011).
Number 4, p. 11 (2009).
Source: http://2012.atmindex.org/sites/www.accesstomedicineindex.org/files/who_prequalification_of_medicines_programme.pdf
3rd SSIPM Congress December 2-3, 2011 Montreux Swiss Society for Interventional Pain Management Swiss Neuromodulation Society PROGRAMME Impact of pain research on daily practice: change your routine Table of Contents General Information Faculty and Chairs Confirmed Congress Sponsors and Exhibitors
Goran Koevski * PARALLEL IMPORTS OF MEDICINES (DRUGS) IN THE REPUBLIC OF MACEDONIA - COMPETITION LAW ISSUES I. Introduction As from the beginning of 2012, in the Republic of Macedonian, a legal framework was created for parallel imports of medicines. This regulatory reform raised a lot of dilemmas. Namely, the government wanted to make drugs (either branded or generic) more available, affordable and accessible, for as much as of the general public with reasonable prices, by reducing at the same time the governmental spending, according to its own healthcare policy. On the other hand, authorized drug wholesalers for a long time were facing negative publicity by making huge profits on the pharmaceutical market. Finally, the parallel imports possibility deteriorated the existing producer - distributor relations on the market. Exclusive distributors feel frustrated with the possibility of an additional potential competition and they expect producers to take some remedies in order to eliminate or to restrict this competition. In this Article, we expect to clarify some of these dilemmas and give comparative view of the solutions existing in other countries. II. What is the notion of parallel imports?