Air-Moving Device
@airmovingdevice.bsky.social
📤 1001
📥 227
📝 105
China and the world in data and graphs 一点浩然气 千里快哉风
[email protected]
pinned post!
一致性评价是确保仿制药有效、安全的关键监管措施。然而,若仿制药在通过一致性评价后,生产环节发生变化,是否依旧符合与参比试剂的一致性? 实际上,一款仿制药在通过一致性评价后,可对原材料供应商、生产工艺、生产厂址等多项生产环节进行变更,而无需重新进行一致性评价,多数情况只需在省级药监部门进行备案。 我分析了国家药监局公布的2019年至今的16万余条药物补充备案,发现通过一致性评价的仿制药、进入集采的药品中,广泛存在过评后生产环节的变更。 并且,进入集采的药品,相对于同成分但未进入集采的药品,进行了更多此类变更。 这些变更并非一定会影响药效、安全性,但仍需解决如何对此进行有效监管的问题。
8 months ago
2
19
11
Update: 在最近公布的《全国药品集中采购文件》中,增加了两项关于集采药品生产环节变更的规定:变更时需公开变更内容、未发生变更的企业在同等价位时优先入选。 这两项规定明显弱于之前征求意见稿中的硬性规定:首个中选周期内不得进行重要生产环节的变更,否则取消中选资格。 大概是多方博弈的结果,baby steps也好吧。
add a skeleton here at some point
17 days ago
0
4
1
DOGE/Musk preferentially cancelled grants and contracts to recipients in counties that voted for Harris in 2024. Among cancellations with election data available, 92.9% and 86.1% cancelled grants and contracts went to Harris counties, representing 96.6% and 92.4% of total dollar amounts.
7 months ago
74
2233
1253
Thread: prevalence of post-approval changes in generic drugs and jicai (集采) drugs. I analyzed >160k supplemental filings and found widespread post-approval changes in generics and jicai drugs. Importantly, jicai drugs underwent more changes than non-jicai counterparts.
bsky.app/profile/airm...
add a skeleton here at some point
8 months ago
1
3
1
reposted by
Air-Moving Device
一致性评价是确保仿制药有效、安全的关键监管措施。然而,若仿制药在通过一致性评价后,生产环节发生变化,是否依旧符合与参比试剂的一致性? 实际上,一款仿制药在通过一致性评价后,可对原材料供应商、生产工艺、生产厂址等多项生产环节进行变更,而无需重新进行一致性评价,多数情况只需在省级药监部门进行备案。 我分析了国家药监局公布的2019年至今的16万余条药物补充备案,发现通过一致性评价的仿制药、进入集采的药品中,广泛存在过评后生产环节的变更。 并且,进入集采的药品,相对于同成分但未进入集采的药品,进行了更多此类变更。 这些变更并非一定会影响药效、安全性,但仍需解决如何对此进行有效监管的问题。
8 months ago
2
19
11
一致性评价是确保仿制药有效、安全的关键监管措施。然而,若仿制药在通过一致性评价后,生产环节发生变化,是否依旧符合与参比试剂的一致性? 实际上,一款仿制药在通过一致性评价后,可对原材料供应商、生产工艺、生产厂址等多项生产环节进行变更,而无需重新进行一致性评价,多数情况只需在省级药监部门进行备案。 我分析了国家药监局公布的2019年至今的16万余条药物补充备案,发现通过一致性评价的仿制药、进入集采的药品中,广泛存在过评后生产环节的变更。 并且,进入集采的药品,相对于同成分但未进入集采的药品,进行了更多此类变更。 这些变更并非一定会影响药效、安全性,但仍需解决如何对此进行有效监管的问题。
8 months ago
2
19
11
It’s weird seeing my data contributing to public discussions in China — something I’ve wanted to do from the start, but for obvious reasons I cannot post inside the GFW. A small part of me wants some credit, but it’s more the powerlessness that I can’t explain and defend my data on my own terms.
8 months ago
1
16
4
Glaring data duplication and discrepancies in NMPA's generics trial data, caught using multiple different methods. I believe they cannot be attributed to simple "editing errors" as claimed by NMPA. This points to potential fraud, negligence, and poor NMPA oversight.
add a skeleton here at some point
8 months ago
0
5
1
Thread: data manipulation and discrepancies in generics clinical trials that cannot be attributed to "editorial errors" by NMPA 1) An instance of blatant data duplication in a clinical trial for an HBV drug, appearing in material published by the drugmaker/clinical trial team.
9 months ago
1
3
1
reposted by
Air-Moving Device
The saga of data issues in Chinese clinical trials continues... While NMPA works on their internal audit, I found more instances of data discrepancies that are hard to attribute to "editorial errors", as NMPA claimed in response to my previous posts. This gets technical but bear with me.
9 months ago
1
10
10
深层次分析药监局公布的仿制药一致性数据时,发现了难以用“编辑错误”解释的统计学问题。不知问题具体出在哪一个环节,临床,药企,还是药监局。 但很明显的问题经过层层审核未被发现,至少说明药监局对数据的分析核查能力不足。加上之前的低级“编辑错误”,药监局未能对一致性评价起到该有的监管作用。
add a skeleton here at some point
9 months ago
0
5
2
The saga of data issues in Chinese clinical trials continues... While NMPA works on their internal audit, I found more instances of data discrepancies that are hard to attribute to "editorial errors", as NMPA claimed in response to my previous posts. This gets technical but bear with me.
9 months ago
1
10
10
Follow-up: NMPA has made all downloads to trial data unavailable. Internal auditing is my guess. I do think that some of these data discrepancies could be honest editorial mistakes as NMPA claimed, especially ones where the entire result section was lifted from another trial. But…
add a skeleton here at some point
9 months ago
1
6
1
NMPA Center for Drug Evaluation has issued a statement claiming that these data discrepancies are due to editorial errors on their end when making the trial results public, and they have corrected the errors.
www.cde.org.cn/main/news/vi...
add a skeleton here at some point
9 months ago
0
6
4
As of 1/24 2:00PM Beijing time, NMPA NDE has updated the publicly available results file for 2 of the 5 examples of suspected data fraud that I listed in my tweet. The edits are made by a 魏春敏, who works at NMPA NDE.
add a skeleton here at some point
9 months ago
1
4
4
I do want to point out that I’m in no way against centralized, volume-based procurement and generics. In fact, I think they’re fundamentally a great idea for patients, given that their safety and effectiveness are demonstrated with rigorous testing and proper regulatory oversight.
add a skeleton here at some point
9 months ago
4
9
0
I hate to plug my own research, but I believe this is an important issue — fraud and plagiarism with real world consequences for healthcare and the drug industry in China. What strikes me most is how blatant and dumb the fraud is — simple copy-and-paste plagiarism of a competitor drug’s trial.
add a skeleton here at some point
9 months ago
0
5
1
Thread: I found data fraud in multiple clinical trials for generic drugs in China. I've seen limited coverage outside China of the recent controversy over 集采 — centralized procurement of drugs, especially generics. It is a hugely important issue close to my heart.
9 months ago
7
131
70
you reached the end!!
feeds!
log in