ArticleJournal of clinical pharmacy and therapeutics2014
Approval gap of pharmacogenomic biomarkers and in vitro companion diagnostics between the United States and Japan.
Article in Journal of clinical pharmacy and therapeutics, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Milestone to Ensure Safety and Efficacy of Companion Diagnostic (CDx) That Support Treatment Decisions in Cancer Patients.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Pharmacogenomics Implementation and Hurdles to Overcome; In the Context of a Developing Country.Iranian journal of pharmaceutical research : IJPR · 2021Article
- Guidance for pharmacogenomic biomarker testing in labels of FDA-approved drugs.Genetics in medicine : official journal of the American College of Medical Genetics · 2015Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
WHAT IS KNOWN AND
objectivesIn vitro companion diagnostic devices (CDx) provide information on pharmacogenomic biomarkers (PGBMs) to enable the safe and effective use of targeted agents for personalized therapy. These devices require specific regulations that strike a balance between scientific evidence and financial burden. The aims were to compare approval of PGBMs and CDx in the USA and Japan and to help inform current discussions on personalized medicine.
methodsWe analysed published documentation from the USA and Japan for CDx and PGBMs, listed by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Aspects evaluated were aim, approval state and therapeutic area. Coverage by the National Health Insurance in Japan was also investigated. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION: Thirty-eight PGBMs were listed in the FDA table as of March 2013. In the USA, the aim was efficacy in 55% (21/38). The largest therapeutic area was oncology (39%, 15/38). Fifty-three per cent (20/38) of the PGBMs had a corresponding CDx approved. Of the 38 PGBMs in the FDA table, six had no approved drug in Japan; in 16 of the remaining 32 PGBMs, the aim was efficacy. The largest therapeutic area was oncology (34%, 11/32). Of the 32 PGBMs, 15 were associated with an approved and/or covered CDx, with only 11 having an approved CDx. Four PGBMs had a covered CDx without prior approval in Japan. WHAT IS NEW AND
conclusionOur study confirms that there is still a substantial gap in the approval of PGBMs and CDx between Japan and the USA. Complementary coverage of unapproved CDx by the National Health Insurance, however, is raising access to a similar level in both countries. Because the number of expensive personalized medicines and CDx is increasing, patient access will continue to be an important challenge to healthcare systems in all countries.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.