{"title":"Drug Review and Approval Policies Based on Real-world Evidence in China and the United States: A Comparative Study.","authors":"Munire Mohetaer, Adili Tuersun, Pei Li, Su Wang, Xingyan Zhang, Yuwen Chen","doi":"10.1016/j.clinthera.2024.09.009","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>The use of real-world evidence (RWE) in regulatory reviews and approvals is currently experiencing significant changes amid increasingly active discussions, primarily reflected in relevant policies, regulations, and guidance documents. However, disparities persist between China and the United States regarding the acceptance and formulation of policies for incorporating real-world data/evidence (RWD/E) in regulatory evaluation and authorization. Furthermore, the current policies lack specific operational details necessary for effective implementation and widespread adoption.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>After conducting a systematic literature review and comparing relevant policies, regulations, and guidelines, as well as the related information published on their official websites, we analyze key aspects of RWE-based drug review and approval policies to highlight similarities and differences in these policies between China and the United States.</p><p><strong>Findings: </strong>This paper reviews the frameworks and existing guidelines in China and the U.S., discussing similarities and differences observed in key policy aspects, including relevant definitions, data sources, data standards, data quality, and connectivity, information requirements, study design, personnel training, and communication, including an example of the application of RWE in drug review and approval processes.</p><p><strong>Implications: </strong>Further develop and refine RWE policies, encourage cooperation, and share best practices and successful examples to enhance the effectiveness of policy implementation and increase its social acceptance.</p>","PeriodicalId":10699,"journal":{"name":"Clinical therapeutics","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical therapeutics","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clinthera.2024.09.009","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Purpose: The use of real-world evidence (RWE) in regulatory reviews and approvals is currently experiencing significant changes amid increasingly active discussions, primarily reflected in relevant policies, regulations, and guidance documents. However, disparities persist between China and the United States regarding the acceptance and formulation of policies for incorporating real-world data/evidence (RWD/E) in regulatory evaluation and authorization. Furthermore, the current policies lack specific operational details necessary for effective implementation and widespread adoption.
Methods: After conducting a systematic literature review and comparing relevant policies, regulations, and guidelines, as well as the related information published on their official websites, we analyze key aspects of RWE-based drug review and approval policies to highlight similarities and differences in these policies between China and the United States.
Findings: This paper reviews the frameworks and existing guidelines in China and the U.S., discussing similarities and differences observed in key policy aspects, including relevant definitions, data sources, data standards, data quality, and connectivity, information requirements, study design, personnel training, and communication, including an example of the application of RWE in drug review and approval processes.
Implications: Further develop and refine RWE policies, encourage cooperation, and share best practices and successful examples to enhance the effectiveness of policy implementation and increase its social acceptance.
期刊介绍:
Clinical Therapeutics provides peer-reviewed, rapid publication of recent developments in drug and other therapies as well as in diagnostics, pharmacoeconomics, health policy, treatment outcomes, and innovations in drug and biologics research. In addition Clinical Therapeutics features updates on specific topics collated by expert Topic Editors. Clinical Therapeutics is read by a large international audience of scientists and clinicians in a variety of research, academic, and clinical practice settings. Articles are indexed by all major biomedical abstracting databases.