Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38987923›Full record

ArticleClinical and translational science2024

Continued cancer drug approvals in Japan and Europe after market withdrawal in the United States: A comparative study of accelerated approvals.

Hayase Hakariya, Frank Moriarty, Akihiko Ozaki, Shai Mulinari, Hiroaki Saito, Tetsuya Tanimoto

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in Clinical and translational science, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
–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

8 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. 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

6 authors.

Hayase HakariyaInterfaculty Institute of Biochemistry, University of Tuebingen, Tuebingen, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-9121-4551
Frank MoriartySchool of Pharmacy and Biomolecular Sciences, RCSI University of Medicine and Health Sciences, Dublin, Ireland.ORCID 0000-0001-9838-3625
Akihiko OzakiBreast and Thyroid Center, Jyoban Hospital of Tokiwa Foundation, Iwaki, Fukushima, Japan.ORCID 0000-0003-4415-9657
Shai MulinariDepartment of Sociology, Lund University, Lund, Sweden.ORCID 0000-0001-8773-9796
Hiroaki SaitoMedical Governance Research Institute, Tokyo, Japan.ORCID 0000-0002-0824-454X
Tetsuya TanimotoMedical Governance Research Institute, Tokyo, Japan.ORCID 0000-0002-9818-8587

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Regulatory authorities must balance ensuring evidence of efficacy and safety of new drugs. Various regulatory pathways, such as the accelerated approval program in the United States (US), allow authorities to quickly approve drugs for severely ill patients by granting market authorization based on surrogate end points and pending confirmatory trials. In this cross-sectional study, we considered 23 indications of cancer drugs that received accelerated approval by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) but were subsequently withdrawn as of April 2023. Our investigation extended to assessing the regulatory status of these accelerated approvals in the European Union (EU) and Japan, examining relevant regulatory documents and identifying factors contributing to the withdrawal in the United States. Comparing regions, we found that for 52% (12/23) and 30% (7/23) of withdrawn accelerated approvals in the United States, sponsors had also sought marketing authorization from the European Medicines Agency (EMA) and Japan's Pharmaceuticals and Medical Devices Agency (PMDA), respectively. As of the April 30, 2023 study cutoff date, 83% (10/12) of drug-indication pairs remained approved by the EMA, while the PMDA retained 100% (7/7). For these indications, the time from FDA withdrawal until the study cutoff date ranged from 0.23 years to 11.45 years for EMA approvals (median: 1.28 years) and 1.10 years to 11.45 years for PMDA approvals (median: 3.22 years). These findings highlight substantial regulatory discrepancies concerning cancer drugs with unconfirmed benefits. Addressing these discrepancies may involve requiring pharmaceutical companies to confirm clinical benefits using more robust end points and fostering international harmonization in regulators' assessment.

Indexed as

Antineoplastic AgentsDrug ApprovalUnited States Food and Drug AdministrationCross-Sectional StudiesEuropeEuropean UnionHumansJapanNeoplasmsUnited StatesAntineoplastic Agents

Identifiers

PMID38987923
PMCPMC11236735

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.