ArticleBMJ public health2025
Disparities in the access to immune checkpoint inhibitors approved in the United States, the European Union and mainland China: a serial cross-sectional study.
Article in BMJ public health, 2025. 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.
- A Delphi Study to Identify Priority Indicators for Formulary Selection of Innovative Anticancer Drugs in China.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 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
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) have revolutionised antitumour therapy. However, regional differences in ICI labels, including the impact of the review process and supporting trial evidence, remain unclear. Methods: We conducted a serial cross-sectional study to examine trends and differences in indication approvals and associated clinical trials for ICIs across different regulatory agencies. We searched ICI labels approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), European Medicines Agency (EMA) and National Medical Products Administration (NMPA) in Mainland China before 31 December 2022 and assessed the indications and clinical trials in labels. Relative lags of indication approvals were compared using the Mann-Whitney U test. The review time and interval between trial completion and indication submission were compared using the Kruskal-Wallis test. Results: We collected 10 ICIs with 90 indications from the FDA, 10 ICIs with 70 indications from EMA and 16 ICIs with 65 indications from NMPA. Relative lags of ICI indication approval in China (median 344.0 (IQR 220.0, 688.0) days) were longer than in the European Union (118.5 (55.0, 189.0) days) (p<0.0001). Both the European Union (243.0 (191.0, 298.0) days) and China (283.0 (248.0, 339.5) days) demonstrated significantly longer review durations for ICI indications than the United States (181.0 (148.8, 191.8) days) (p<0.0001). While indication submissions to NMPA were significantly more delayed than those to the FDA (p<0.001), the former relied more on trial evidence of OS (84.0%) than the latter (58.0%). Conclusion: ICIs approved in the United States, the European Union and mainland China differed in indications, approval time, review duration and evidence base, which may impact access to life-saving treatments. Future studies should investigate the impact of these differences and the underlying reasons beyond the evidence supporting the label approvals.
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.