↓ Skip to main content

Utilization of the Bridging Strategy for the Development of New Drugs in Oncology to Avoid Drug Lag

Overview of attention for article published in The Journal of Clinical Pharmacology, June 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (89th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (91st percentile)

Mentioned by

news
3 news outlets

Citations

dimensions_citation
17 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
5 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Utilization of the Bridging Strategy for the Development of New Drugs in Oncology to Avoid Drug Lag
Published in
The Journal of Clinical Pharmacology, June 2017
DOI 10.1002/jcph.951
Pubmed ID
Authors

Seiji Kogure, Nobuyuki Koyama, Shinji Hidaka

Abstract

Global trial (GT) strategy and bridging (BG) strategy are currently the main clinical development strategies of oncology drugs in Japan, but the relationship between development style and drug lag and how the bridging strategy has contributed to the solution of drug lag have not been clear. We investigated the potential factors that influenced submission lag (SL), and also compared the differences in SL among early-initiation BG strategy, late-initiation BG strategy, and GT strategy. A stepwise linear regression analysis identified the potential factors that shorten SL: development start lag and development style. Comparison of the differences in SL among the strategies also indicated that the SL in the GT strategy and that in the early-initiation BG strategy were significantly shorter than that in the late-initiation BG strategy. The findings in our study suggest that the late-initiation BG strategy may not contribute to shortening drug lag. Because the number of late-initiation BG studies has not decreased, we propose first that pharmaceutical companies should initiate clinical development as early as possible in Japan so that they can choose the GT strategy as a first option at the next step, and second when they cannot choose the GT strategy after investigating differences in exposure between Japanese and non-Japanese in a phase 1 study, they should select the early BG strategy to avoid future drug lag. It is also important for the regulatory authorities to provide reasonable guidance to have a positive impact on strategic decisions, even for foreign-capital companies.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 5 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 5 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 2 40%
Student > Bachelor 1 20%
Other 1 20%
Unknown 1 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 1 20%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 20%
Medicine and Dentistry 1 20%
Unknown 2 40%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 21. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 21 June 2017.
All research outputs
#1,653,536
of 24,525,936 outputs
Outputs from The Journal of Clinical Pharmacology
#111
of 2,362 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#32,598
of 321,021 outputs
Outputs of similar age from The Journal of Clinical Pharmacology
#3
of 36 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,525,936 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 93rd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,362 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.0. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 321,021 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 36 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% of its contemporaries.