ArticleTherapeutic innovation & regulatory science2023
Changes in the Review Period of Drug Application and a Drug Lag from the FDA and the EMA: An Industry Survey in South Korea Between 2011 and 2020.
Article in Therapeutic innovation & regulatory science, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Pan-Asian adapted ESMO Clinical Practice Guidelines for the diagnosis, treatment and follow-up of patients with pancreatic cancer.ESMO open · 2025Guideline
- Advancing Wider Implementation of Multi-regional Clinical Trials in East Asia.Therapeutic innovation & regulatory science · 2026Review
- Regulatory efforts to address the access gap for foreign new drugs in China: the priority review program and related policies.Global health research and policy · 2025Article
- International comparison of availability for orphan drugs: focused on approved orphan drugs in South Korea.Journal of pharmaceutical policy and practice · 2024Article
- Bridging the new drug access gap between China and the United States and its related policies.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2023Article
- An Empirical Analysis of Anti-Cancer Drug Lags in South Korea.Inquiry : a journal of medical care organization, provision and financingArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe Korean regulatory authority has enacted legislation to expedite the new drug approval (NDA) process. However, the effectiveness of such efforts in reducing review time and drug approval delays between Korea and the USA/EU remains to be evaluated.
methodsWe investigated NDA trends in Korea from 2011 to 2020 using approval information from pharmaceutical companies. We compared the changes in the actual review duration according to active ingredient (chemical vs. biological), orphan status, therapeutic class, and NDA review process. We estimated the submission and approval gaps of new drugs between Korea and the US and EU across the study period.
resultsFor 235 new drugs, the median NDA review time was 315 days, with a significant increase in the delay (average 15.4 days) over time. Biological drugs had a 43.2-day delay for approval than the time taken for approving chemical drugs. The median NDA review time for orphan drugs was 130.4 days faster than that for others, although the difference diminished after 2016. Good manufacturing practice reviews played a crucial role in delaying review time. The median submission and approval gaps in Korea were 493 and 551 days, respectively, compared to those of the US and EU.
conclusionsDespite recent legislative initiatives, the delay in the NDA review timeline has steadily increased over 10 years in Korea. Delays in orphan drugs reviews increased after the enactment of the 'Rare Disease Management Act' in 2016. Careful enforcement of relevant laws and supplementary actions is required to increase new drug accessibility.
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.