ReviewDrug safety2026
Navigating Non-interventional Post-authorization Studies in East Asia: Regulatory Challenges, Opportunities, and Future Directions.
Review in Drug safety, 2026. 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
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Post-authorization studies (PAS) are often mandated by regulatory authorities as a condition of marketing authorization of pharmaceutical products. This article explores specific regulations and trends in China, Japan, and South Korea, highlighting the scientific and operational limitations that such PAS pose to the stakeholders in these regions including significant variations in regulatory requirements. Pharmacovigilance guidelines and publications on regional regulatory trends were reviewed. Active surveillance studies are widely adopted to fulfill post-authorization requirements in East Asia countries. These are primary data collection studies, i.e., traditional site-based studies that monitor the frequency of all adverse events (and clinical outcomes when requested) of the newly approved pharmaceutical product during a predefined treatment period. Such studies generally present limitations regarding the product's safety profile characterization, including the absence of a comparator group, selection bias, limited sample size, and considerable resources needed to conduct the studies. These limitations explain the trend toward hypothesis testing studies, conducted with secondary data (e.g., large electronic database studies) as preferred over traditional active surveillance studies. Harmonizing regulatory approaches and enhancing access to comprehensive data sources are critical for generating fit-for-purpose evidence to support regulatory decision making in these regions. Therefore, we propose a decision tool to assist with the planning of PAS in China, Japan, and South Korea. This article is endorsed by the International Society for Pharmacoepidemiology (ISPE).
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.