ReviewNaunyn-Schmiedeberg's archives of pharmacology2026
Lifecycle regulation of narrow therapeutic index drugs: Chinese practices, international benchmarks, and optimization pathways.
Review in Naunyn-Schmiedeberg's archives of pharmacology, 2026. 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.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Given the narrow therapeutic window, high inter-individual variability, and inherent risks of Narrow Therapeutic Index Drugs (NTIDs), this study systematically analyzes global NTID regulatory policies to explore pathways for optimizing China's lifecycle management system. The ultimate goals are to ensure clinical medication safety and promote the healthy development of the generic drug industry. This research conducts a systematic comparative policy review and narrative synthesis of the current regulatory landscape of NTIDs in China, covering both pre-market and post-market stages. We systematically identified and screened regulatory documents, technical guidelines, and policy statements from major international jurisdictions, including the United States Food and Drug Administration (USFDA), the European Medicines Agency (EMA), Health Canada, and Japan's Pharmaceuticals and Medical Devices Agency (PMDA). The analysis focused on four core pillars: catalog status, bioequivalence (BE) requirements, generic substitution policies, and post-market risk monitoring. China's NTID regulatory system currently under development but has not yet formed a comprehensive, systematic, and dynamically updated framework. Globally, regulatory bodies generally impose stricter lifecycle controls, particularly by narrowing BE acceptance intervals (e.g., AUC to 90.00-111.11%) and requiring replicated study designs (e.g., USFDA). However, significant differences persist in catalog management methods (explicit lists in the US and Japan vs. implicit guidance in the EU), BE limits (e.g., Health Canada's AUC of 90.00-112.00%), and generic substitution policies (e.g., the USFDA's BX rating and state-level substitution restrictions). Deficiencies in China persist in areas such as official catalog establishment and the lack of a scientific, graded substitution system. China should draw on international experience to optimize its NTID regulatory system. Recommended actions include strengthening catalog management and technical standards, improving the regulatory policy framework, establishing a scientific, graded substitution system, prudently advancing volume-based procurement (VPB), and enhancing post-market safety monitoring and risk governance capabilities.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41553495What 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.