ArticleFrontiers in medicine2024
Current situation and issues regarding termination of risk management plans in Japan.
Article in Frontiers in medicine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Important potential risks not reflected in Japanese drug labeling: implications for risk management plan termination.Daru : journal of Faculty of Pharmacy, Tehran University of Medical Sciences · 2026Article
- Important missing information in Japan's risk management plans: a cross-sectional analysis after a decade of implementation.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Article
- Characterization of Japanese Risk Management Plans after 10 Years of Implementation: 2013-2023.Therapeutic innovation & regulatory science · 2025Article
- Has risk management plan system influenced the speed of package insert revisions in Japan?Frontiers in medicine · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: In Japan, drugs approved after the 2013 implementation of the risk management plan (RMP) have the opportunity to be evaluated for RMP termination. However, the guidelines for risk management following the termination of an RMP remain unclear. Drugs are evaluated for RMP termination at the timing of reexamination. Reexamination system is unique to Japan and initiated in 1979, verifies the approved efficacy and safety of a newly marketed drug based on the data from its actual use over a certain period. This study investigated drugs in Japan for which the RMP requirement was lifted upon reexamination and those for which it was not. We organized their characteristics and considered future issues. Methods: We identified drugs with RMPs and obtained information on RMP termination from the public website of the Pharmaceuticals and Medical Devices Agency (PMDA). The survey period spanned 10 years, from April 2013, when the RMP was implemented, to March 2023. Results: During the survey period, 72 drugs with RMPs completed reexamination in Japan. The RMP requirement was lifted for 69 drugs (95.8%) and remained for three drugs (4.2%). Upon RMP termination, 16 out of 69 drugs (23.2%) had important potential risks not listed in the package insert, with malignant neoplasm being the most common. Eleven drugs (15.9%) had important missing information not listed in the package insert, with the most common being the impact on cardiovascular risk. Two drugs (2.9%) had ongoing additional pharmacovigilance activities, and 43 drugs (62.3%) had additional risk minimization activities. Conclusion: Upon reexamination completion, the RMP requirement was lifted for many drugs and remained for a few. Should safety concerns require continued attention following reexamination, we advocate for the continuation of the RMP, guided by more explicit rules. In light of the harmonization of RMP rules with those of other countries, there is a desire for enhanced drug safety management.
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.