Evidence Hub

Efficacy Comparison for a Schizophrenia and a Dysuria Drug Among East Asian Populations: A Retrospective Analysis Using Multi-regional Clinical Trial Data

K. Sai, E. Nakatani, Y. Iwama, S. Hiraoka, M. Tohkin, Y. Uyama, Yoshiro Saito

Therapeutic Innovation and Regulatory Science, 2021

2 citations

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Multi-regional clinical trials (MRCTs) are an efficient drug development strategy for eliminating drug lag in East Asian countries. In planning MRCTs according to the International Council for Harmonisation of Technical Requirements for Pharmaceuticals for Human Use E17 guideline, it is expected that East Asian populations with relatively similar ethnicity can be pooled as one population. However, evidence supporting this assumption is limited. This study aimed to investigate population/regional differences considering influencing factors among East Asian regions using MRCT data as a research model.

METHODS: A retrospective analysis was conducted to determine the efficacy of two drugs, asenapine, a schizophrenia drug, and tadalafil, a dysuria drug for benign prostatic hyperplasia, using MRCT data from Japan, Korea, and Taiwan. First, predictive factors and effect modifiers were evaluated. Then, population/regional differences were evaluated using multivariate regression models, with the interaction term Region-by-Treatment group and adjustment for influencing intrinsic/extrinsic factors.

RESULTS: Among the 4 outcomes for the two drugs, no significant population/regional differences were detected (P > 0.05) by the adjusted regression models. The effect modifiers, such as pretreatment drug status or concurrent diseases, were common among countries.

CONCLUSIONS: No significant population/regional efficacy differences were found for the two drugs among…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a cohort study, done in people. Its evidence level is 3 of 5 (Moderate · trial / cohort / secondary analysis). Trials without a large randomized design, cohorts and secondary analyses give moderate evidence.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free