ArticleTherapeutic innovation & regulatory science2025
Impact of China's Drug Review and Approval System Reform on Pediatric Drugs: an Analysis Based on Registration Data from 2015 to 2024.
Article in Therapeutic innovation & regulatory science, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
This study systematically evaluated the impact of China's drug review system reform on pediatric drug approval efficiency using 310 pediatric drug registration records (2015-2024) from the CDE of China's NMPA supplemented with the YaoZhi Database, with comparative analysis of adult drug review patterns. Post-2019 amendments to the DAL significantly reduced pediatric review timelines from a median of 450 days (2015-2019) to 377 days (2020-2024; P < 0.0001), representing a 16.4% reduction versus adult drugs (451 days). The standard review pathway showed even greater pediatric acceleration (385 days vs. adult 497.5 days; 22.6% reduction, P < 0.0001), demonstrating targeted regulatory resource allocation. While biologics exhibited significant review advantages (342 days vs. chemical drugs' 403 days; P = 0.0085), structural imbalances persisted: high import dependency (73.9% imported vs. 26.1% domestic), inadequate child-appropriate formulations (< 10%), and critical therapeutic gaps (traditional Chinese medicines: 1.3%; rare disease drugs: < 5%). Efficiency gains were linked to expanded priority review adoption and optimized technical standards, yet unresolved deficits necessitate: establishing a dedicated pediatric review database with unified standards and conditional access; optimizing resource allocation for clinically urgent drugs; enhancing rare disease incentives; and accelerating age-appropriate formulation innovation-collectively enhancing regulatory science to address pediatric clinical needs.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40668501What 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.