ArticleClinical pharmacology and therapeutics2025
Dose Determinations at Drug Approval Reviews: FDA-Approved Drugs in Past 5 Years.
Article in Clinical pharmacology and therapeutics, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Implementing Project Optimus in Oncology Dosage Optimization: Where are We Now?Therapeutic innovation & regulatory science · 2026Article
- A Comparison of Regional Decisions for Doses and Administrations of New Drugs: Concordance, Discordance, and Dependencies.Clinical pharmacology and therapeutics · 2026Article
- Evaluating zongertinib in the treatment of patients with HER2-mutant non-small cell lung cancer.Future oncology (London, England) · 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Drug dose appropriateness is one of the most discussed issues in regulatory reviews. We analyzed dose determinations during Food and Drug Administration (FDA) drug reviews to determine whether there were changes between the proposed and approved doses of new molecular entities (NMEs), including cases where postmarketing dose-finding studies were requested, and explored the factors associated with these decisions. Of the 218 eligible NMEs approved between 2018 and 2022, 28 drugs (13%) had modifications to the proposed dose or requested additional postmarketing assessments, 20 of which were to a lower dose ("downward," 9.2%) and five were to a higher dose ("upward," 2.3%). Multinomial logistic regression analysis suggested that products that used the Accelerated Approval program were more likely to undergo downward modification (relative risk ratio (RRR) = 5.73). In addition, the fact that a dose/exposure-response relationship was observed for safety, but not efficacy, was associated with an increased probability of downward modifications (RRR: 4.27). In contrast, the use of pharmacodynamic biomarkers for dose setting and designation of Priority Review was associated with decreased probabilities of downward change (RRR: 0.405 and 0.195, respectively). Infectious disease drugs went through more upward modifications than those in the other therapeutic categories. This study revealed that dose "optimization" occurs during the FDA's review for drug approval and that not only product characteristics but also factors related to the drug review and approval process are associated with the decisions to modify or question the dose, suggesting considerations for the presence of compelling evidence and restrictions in data availabilities.
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.