ArticleClinical pharmacology and therapeutics2026
A Comparison of Regional Decisions for Doses and Administrations of New Drugs: Concordance, Discordance, and Dependencies.
Article in Clinical pharmacology and therapeutics, 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
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Regional differences in approved drug dosages and administration are shaped by complex factors, including clinical data, prior regulatory decisions, and region-specific considerations. This study investigated how such factors are associated with variations in approved doses across the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA), European Medicines Agency (EMA), and Pharmaceuticals and Medical Devices Agency (PMDA) in the context of recent global regulatory practices. We analyzed 111 new molecular entities approved in the United States and Japan from 2017 to 2023, incorporating EMA data where available. Dose concordance, defined as agreement between regions on the labeled approved dosing regimen for the same indication, was observed in 77% between PMDA and FDA and 84% between EMA and FDA, higher than rates reported in earlier studies. Nevertheless, significant regional differences remain. Qualitative analysis suggested that discordance in approved doses was associated with a small number of high-level factors, including differences in benefit-risk perspectives, approaches to dose determination, population-related considerations. Quantitative analysis indicated associations with trial design and submission timing. In a subset of 11 products in which FDA approval preceded approvals by other agencies and involved FDA-led dose modifications, patterns were observed that were consistent with potential interdependence in regulatory decision making, while sponsor-driven harmonization and shared evidence bases may also underlie these patterns. These findings suggest that early regulatory engagement and international coordination may support efficient dose selection, although attention must be paid to differing benefit-risk assessment considerations across regions.
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.