Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42171747›Full record

ArticleNaunyn-Schmiedeberg's archives of pharmacology2026

Critical analysis of withdrawn drug applications in marketing authorization procedures of the European Medicines Agency (EMA) 2006-2024.

Florian Hitsch, Roland Seifert

Erratum issuedAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article 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. An erratum has been issued. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Florian HitschInstitute of Pharmacology, Hannover Medical School, Carl-Neuberg-Str. 1, D-30625, Hannover, Germany.
Roland SeifertInstitute of Pharmacology, Hannover Medical School, Carl-Neuberg-Str. 1, D-30625, Hannover, Germany. seifert.roland@mh-hannover.de.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Withdrawn drug applications (WDAs) are drug approval applications withdrawn by the applicant before the European Medicines Agency (EMA) has made a final decision. To better understand the main reasons for the emergence of WDAs, this study critically analyzes all WDAs in the period from 2006 to 2024. The data analysis is based on the 330 WDAs published by the EMA during the period mentioned above. Various parameters were analyzed, such as active substances, therapeutic subgroups and objections raised by the EMA. The most common therapeutic subgroups are antineoplastic agents (N = 80), followed by immunosuppressants (N = 23). Most drug approval applications are for initial approval (N = 244; 73.9%), supported by a single key clinical trial. In 77.3% (N = 255) of cases, the key clinical trials included a control arm (reference drug and/or placebo). In 69.7% (N = 230) of cases, no initial marketing authorization recommendation was made by the EMA's Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use (CHMP). The most common reason for this was concerns about clinical efficacy (33.46%; N = 348), partly due to inadequate clinical trial design. A major reason for the accumulation of WDAs in the antineoplastic agents group is presumably the high demand for supply and the resulting economic potential of this drug group. The present analysis may contribute to the identification of obstacles and the resulting potential for optimization in the EMA's drug approval procedures.

Indexed as

Drug ApprovalMarketingSafety-Based Drug WithdrawalsAntineoplastic AgentsEuropeHumansAntineoplastic AgentsEMAMarketing authorization proceduresWithdrawn drug applications

Identifiers

PMID42171747
PMCPMC13503448

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.