ReviewMolecular therapy. Methods & clinical development2024
Insights into post-marketing clinical validation of companion diagnostics with reference to the FDA, EMA, PMDA, and MFDS.
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.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Milestone to Ensure Safety and Efficacy of Companion Diagnostic (CDx) That Support Treatment Decisions in Cancer Patients.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.