SynthesisInternational journal of clinical pharmacy2026
Comparison of treatment efficacy of targeted therapies approved in China for non-small cell lung cancer before and after the introduction of accelerated drug marketing registration procedures.
Synthesis in International journal of clinical pharmacy, 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
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
introductionThe introduction of Accelerated Drug Marketing Registration Procedures (ADMRPs) in China has improved patient access to innovative therapies, but concerns remain about the robustness and consistency of efficacy evidence.
aimThis study aimed to compare the treatment efficacy of approved targeted therapies for non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) before and after the implementation of ADMRPs.
methodIn this retrospective study, we analyzed targeted therapies for NSCLC approved in China as of December 31, 2024. Approvals were categorized as pre-policy or post-policy groups based on the July 1, 2020 implementation of ADMRPs. Descriptive statistics were used to examine approved indications and pivotal trial designs. Meta-analysis and meta-regression compared pre-approval efficacy outcomes, including overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), disease-free survival, and objective response rate (ORR), between groups. Sensitivity analyses evaluated post-marketing OS data and the robustness of results.
resultsA total of 59 indications supported by 72 trials were approved. Post-policy approvals increased markedly (41 vs 18), with rises in domestic drugs (16.7% pre-policy vs 61.0% post-policy) and uncommon targets (5.6% pre-policy vs 43.9% post-policy) (both P < 0.05). Pivotal trials shifted from primarily Phase III-IV randomized controlled trials (RCTs) (76.0%) pre-policy to Phase I-II single-arm designs (68.1%) post-policy, mainly supporting drugs for uncommon or resistance mutations, whereas approvals for classical targets remained predominantly based on RCTs (90.0% pre-policy vs 93.8% post-policy; P = 0.416). Meta-analyses found no significant differences in pre-approval efficacy between groups for PFS (HR: 0.52 [0.45-0.61] vs 0.44 [0.36-0.54]; P = 0.206) or ORR (0.63 [0.55-0.70] vs 0.65 [0.59-0.70]; P = 0.705). However, OS meta-analysis was only feasible in the pre-policy group, whereas OS data in the post-policy group remained immature, with a median follow-up of 17 months (IQR 8-34) after approval.
conclusionAfter the introduction of ADMRPs, approvals of targeted therapies for NSCLC increased substantially, without significant loss of pre-approval treatment efficacy. However, due to the limited follow-up, definitive survival benefits for the post-policy group cannot yet be established. The increased reliance on single-arm trials underscores the necessity of rigorous confirmatory post-marketing studies.
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.