Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39429725›Full record

ReviewMolecular therapy. Methods & clinical development2024

Insights into post-marketing clinical validation of companion diagnostics with reference to the FDA, EMA, PMDA, and MFDS.

Su Lim Kang, Ji Yean Kwon, Sung Min Kim

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Molecular therapy. Methods & clinical development, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Review
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

3 authors.

Su Lim KangDepartment of Medical Device and Healthcare, Dongguk University-Seoul (04620) 26, Pil-dong 3-ga, Jung-gu, Seoul, Republic of Korea.
Ji Yean KwonDepartment of Medical Device and Healthcare, Dongguk University-Seoul (04620) 26, Pil-dong 3-ga, Jung-gu, Seoul, Republic of Korea.
Sung Min KimDepartment of Medical Device and Healthcare, Dongguk University-Seoul (04620) 26, Pil-dong 3-ga, Jung-gu, Seoul, Republic of Korea.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Companion diagnostics are increasing clinical demand globally, regulatory frameworks for clinical validation are strengthening. Post-marketing verification is an important aspect of providing high-quality, personalized treatment to patients because it can ensure long-term safety and effectiveness, while also generating effective risk management and performance evidence. Certain compliance issues related to the requirements for post-marketing clinical trials can potentially impact manufacturers, so it is essential to have a clear understanding of the regulatory process. In this study, we perform an institutional comparison as well as a case analysis by country (U.S. Food & Drug Administration, European Medicines Agency, Pharmaceuticals and Medical Devices Agency, and Ministry of Food and Drug Safety) on the post-marketing safety and effectiveness of companion diagnostics. We collected guidelines and guidance documents published by each regulatory agency and Post-marketing research case analysis examined the data collection items as well as the materials or templates required to be submitted. The results indicate that there are institutional differences in the post-marketing surveillance activities carried out by different regulatory authorities, and the data required may vary accordingly. The findings of this study are expected to provide new insights that can support manufacturers and developers of companion diagnostics in securing evidence regarding post-marketing safety and effectiveness.

Indexed as

clinical validationcompanion diagnosticseffectivenesspost-marketingsafety

Identifiers

PMID39429725
PMCPMC11490922

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.