Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38590780›Full record

ArticleThe Lancet regional health. Western Pacific2024

Cancer drug indication approvals in China and the United States: a comparison of approval times and clinical benefit, 2001-2020.

Yuxuan Wei, Yichen Zhang, Ziyue Xu, Guoan Wang, Yue Zhou, Huangqianyu Li, Luwen Shi, Huseyin Naci, Anita K Wagner, Xiaodong Guan

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in The Lancet regional health. Western Pacific, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

10 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. An Empirical Analysis of Anti-Cancer Drug Lags in South Korea.Inquiry : a journal of medical care organization, provision and financing
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors.

Yuxuan WeiInternational Research Centre for Medicinal Administration, Peking University, Beijing, China.
Yichen ZhangDepartment of Pharmacy Administration and Clinical Pharmacy, School of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Peking University, Beijing, China.
Ziyue XuDepartment of Pharmacy Administration and Clinical Pharmacy, School of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Peking University, Beijing, China.
Guoan WangDepartment of Pharmacy Administration and Clinical Pharmacy, School of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Peking University, Beijing, China.
Yue ZhouDepartment of Pharmacy Administration and Clinical Pharmacy, School of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Peking University, Beijing, China.
Huangqianyu LiInternational Research Centre for Medicinal Administration, Peking University, Beijing, China.
Luwen ShiInternational Research Centre for Medicinal Administration, Peking University, Beijing, China.
Huseyin NaciDepartment of Health Policy, London School of Economics and Political Science, London, United Kingdom.
Anita K WagnerDepartment of Population Medicine, Harvard Medical School and Harvard Pilgrim Health Care Institute, Boston, MA, United States.
Xiaodong GuanInternational Research Centre for Medicinal Administration, Peking University, Beijing, China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Perceived delays in cancer drug approvals have been a major concern for policymakers in China. Policies have been implemented to accelerate the launch of new cancer drugs and indications. This study aimed to assess similarities and differences between China and the United States in the approvals, timing, and clinical benefit evidence of cancer drug indications between 2001 and 2020. Methods: This study retrospectively identified all cancer drugs and indications approved in both China and the United States from January 1st, 2001 to December 31, 2020, and described differences in approval times as well as in submission and review times. Information on the availability of overall survival benefit evidence by December 31, 2020, was collected. Univariate and multiple logistic regression analyses were used to assess whether evidence of benefit and other factors affected the propensity and timing of approvals of cancer drug indications in China. Findings: Between 2001 and 2020, 229 indications corresponding to 145 cancer drugs approved in the United States were identified. Of those, 80 indications (34.9%) were also approved in China by the end of 2020. Cancer drug indications were approved in China at a median of 1273.5 days after approval in the United States. The median submission and review time differences for cancer drug indications in China were 1198.0 days and 180.0 days respectively. Submission time differences accounted for most of the approval time differences (p < 0.001). Indications supported by overall survival benefit evidence had shorter median review time differences (145.0 days) than those without such evidence (235.0 days, p = 0.008). Indications with overall survival benefit evidence were 3.94 times more likely to be approved in China compared to those without such evidence (p = 0.001), controlling for approval year, cancer type, and the prevalence of cancer by site. Interpretation: FDA-approved cancer drug indications demonstrating a survival benefit were more likely to receive approvals in China with shorter regulatory review times compared to indications without such evidence. Given that manufacturer submission times were the main driver of cancer drug approval times in China, factors influencing submission timing should be explored. Funding: No funding.

Indexed as

Anticancer drugChinaDrug approval timingIndicationOverall survivalUnited States

Identifiers

PMID38590780
PMCPMC10999698

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.