ArticleClinical and translational science2026
Translating Asian-Dominant Pivotal Evidence Into EU Marketing Authorization: An EMA Regulatory Document Analysis, 2021-2025.
Article in Clinical and translational science, 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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
An increasing number of novel molecular entities and biosimilars reach the European Medicines Agency (EMA) supported by pivotal evidence derived predominantly from Asian patient populations. This creates regulatory challenges that the existing ICH E5 framework was not originally designed to address. We performed a retrospective regulatory document analysis of 10 EMA applications assessed between 2021 and 2025 in which pivotal evidence was predominantly Asian. European Public Assessment Reports were reviewed for bridging strategy, intrinsic ethnic sensitivity, data-integrity findings, clinical-practice comparability, and regulatory outcome. Eight applications were authorized and two were withdrawn. Reflecting the eligible EMA case set during 2021-2025, the included products were concentrated in oncology, particularly PD-1/PD-L1 monoclonal antibodies. EMA decisions were shaped by four recurring considerations: expected intrinsic ethnic sensitivity, adequacy of bridging evidence, Good Clinical Practice or manufacturing findings, and comparability of Chinese clinical practice with EU standard of care. Clinical practice divergence was the least standardized source of residual uncertainty. Asian-dominant evidence can support EU authorization, but transparent assessment of extrinsic practice differences is essential for reliable translation.
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.