ArticleGlobal health research and policy2025
Regulatory efforts to address the access gap for foreign new drugs in China: the priority review program and related policies.
Article in Global health research and policy, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. 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.
- Development Timelines of Innovative Drugs in China: A 15-Year Cross-Sectional Analysis of Characteristics and Influencing Factors.Clinical and translational science · 2026Article
- International approval of Chinese pharmaceuticals: a USA-anchored analysis with comparative insights from Europe and other markets.EClinicalMedicine · 2026Article
- Innovative Drugs Approved in China After Registration Classification Reform: Current Status, Disparities, and Challenges.Clinical pharmacology and therapeutics · 2026Article
- Indication Expansion Dynamics and Trial Characteristics of Novel Multi-Indication Anti-Cancer Drugs in China (2000-2024): A Cross-Sectional Study.Drug design, development and therapy · 2026Article
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
Abstract
backgroundChina has implemented the priority review (PR) program and flexible registration requirements for new drugs with significant clinical value since 2016 to accelerate drug access. We aim to explore the impact of the reform efforts on the drug access gap between China and the US.
methodsWe collected data on the imported new drug approvals that were licensed in China between 2007 and 2023, and measured their launch delays as compared to the US. Difference-in-difference models were used to compare the launch delays of PR approvals and non-PR approvals before and after the implementation of the PR. Propensity score matching was used to construct the imputed PR and non-PR approvals in the pre-PR period.
resultsA total of 410 imported approvals were licensed in China in 2007-2023. Most approvals (316[77.1%]) were licensed after the PR was implemented, of which 189[59.8%] received the PR designation. The difference-in-difference models found that the PR program reduced drug launch delay by 1157.0 days (robust standard error, 571.0; P<0.05) and reduced drug submission delay by 1037.3 days (robust standard error, 520.8; P<0.05). The PR identified drugs with high clinical value and informed flexible registration requirements for them, which accelerated drug submission and market entry.
conclusionsOur findings proved the importance of value-based prioritization of new drugs and flexibility in the statutory evidentiary standard in the drug approval process. Further efforts from the drug agency are needed to leverage the regulatory flexibility to provide fast market entry of new drugs without compromising their quality.
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.