ArticleFrontiers in medicine2025
Early access disparities in innovative therapies across the US, EU, China, and Japan.
Article in Frontiers in medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Rebalancing innovation, affordability, and access for orphan drugs in the European Union.The Lancet regional health. Europe · 2026Review
- Facts and Issues of Submitting Applications (Public Knowledge-Based Applications) for Unapproved and Off-label Drugs With High Medical Needs in Japan.Current therapeutic research, clinical and experimental · 2026Article
- Applying biotechnology to overcome cancer drug resistance and improve public health outcomes.Osong public health and research perspectives · 2026Article
- Cross-jurisdictional access to innovative drugs and devices: a five-year policy and practice review of the Hong Kong and Macao medicine and equipment connect in the Greater Bay Area of China.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Article
- Orphan medical devices: addressing the regulatory and access gaps in the EU and US.Frontiers in public health · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Early access to innovative therapies offers a critical lifeline for patients with severe or life-threatening conditions, yet substantial disparities persist across the United States (US), the European Union (EU), China (CH), and Japan (JP). These disparities arise from diverging definitions of unmet medical need (UMN), heterogeneous timelines for regulatory review, and uneven implementation of Early and Expanded Access mechanisms. This policy review provides a comparative analysis of regional frameworks, emphasizing how clinical trial geography, eligibility rules, and access mechanisms interact to shape pre-approval opportunities for patients. While regulatory innovations such as the FDA's Breakthrough Therapy designation, the EMA's PRIME scheme, the PMDA's Sakigake program, and recent reforms in China have accelerated access in selected contexts, cross-border misalignments and fragmented health technology assessment (HTA) processes continue to generate inequities. The EU's new HTA Regulation (2021/2282) represents a step forward by embedding joint clinical assessment and real-world evidence, but persistent structural inconsistencies hinder timely and equitable uptake. This article argues for a paradigm shift from static approval models to adaptive licensing approaches, including live licenses and regulatory sandboxes. It calls for internationally coordinated benefit-risk governance that integrates early access planning into drug development from Phase II onward. By reframing uncertainty as a shared responsibility among regulators, developers, payers, clinicians, and patients, early access governance can be redesigned to promote equity, transparency, and responsiveness particularly for rare and high-burden diseases.
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.