ArticleClinical pharmacology and therapeutics2026
Assessment of United States Food and Drug Administration Approval of Cell and Gene Therapies.
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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The development and use of cell and gene therapies (CGTs) are rapidly expanding and challenge traditional regulatory paradigms. With growing clinical use and high costs, rigorous evaluation of regulatory oversight by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is increasingly important. We characterized premarketing evidence and postmarketing requirements and commitments for all 38 CGTs approved by the FDA through December 31, 2025. Most therapies used special designations and expedited pathways (86.8% had an orphan designation; 92.1% used an expedited pathway). The mean number of pivotal studies required for CGT approval was 1.6 (SD 1.7), with 73.7% approved based on a single study, and 44.7% relying solely on studies with surrogate endpoints. Reliance on postmarketing evidence generation was common, with 73.4% of products approved with at least one postmarketing requirement or commitment, totaling 52 studies. However, only 17.9% of CGTs had a postmarketing study that included a primary clinical efficacy endpoint, and most studies remain ongoing. These findings suggest that current regulatory approaches prioritize timely access but often rely on limited premarket data and postmarketing studies that infrequently assess clinical efficacy outcomes. Ensuring that requirements for preapproval trials and postmarketing studies are adequate and appropriately calibrated to the level of uncertainty and benefit-risk profile of individual CGTs may better support the goal of providing patients with timely, innovative, and transformative treatments that have the greatest potential to advance disease treatment.
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.