data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/7e1e6/7e1e61f01d233b91960c61442e748a5609c80a7c" alt="Man ultramarathon runner in the mountains he trains at sunset"
94% of researchers rate our articles as excellent or good
Learn more about the work of our research integrity team to safeguard the quality of each article we publish.
Find out more
PERSPECTIVE article
Front. Med.
Sec. Regulatory Science
Volume 12 - 2025 | doi: 10.3389/fmed.2025.1337890
This article is part of the Research Topic Approve, Deny or Experiment: Innovations in Regulatory Science that Balance Risk and Benefit View all 4 articles
The final, formatted version of the article will be published soon.
You have multiple emails registered with Frontiers:
Please enter your email address:
If you already have an account, please login
You don't have a Frontiers account ? You can register here
For new drugs or indications, substantial evidence of clinical effectiveness is required for market authorization. In most jurisdictions, substantial evidence is not explicitly defined. Health regulators exercise discretion and are increasingly tolerant of earlier or less mature evidence. To align with flexible evidentiary standards, we argue for the adoption of a principle and, context-based approach to the evidence threshold. Our approach aims to balance the potential benefits and harms of accelerated authorization, low therapeutic value, and safety, based on a value of information (VoI) framework. In our VoI framework, substantial evidence exists when the expected net health value of further research is less than or equal to zero. We operationalize this approach through two case examples that mirror real-time decision factors such as uncertainty, risk preferences and time inputs. As the evidentiary assessment landscape shifts towards flexibility, iterative and clearly defined approaches to risk assessment are warranted. Clarity will stimulate transparency and accountability for both stakeholders and regulators.
Keywords: Substantial evidence, Lifecycle regulation, drug regulation, value of information, evidentiary uncertainty
Received: 13 Nov 2023; Accepted: 25 Feb 2025.
Copyright: © 2025 Bubela, McPhail, McCabe and Regier. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) or licensor are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
* Correspondence:
Dean Regier, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, V6T 1Z2, British Columbia, Canada
Disclaimer: All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.
Research integrity at Frontiers
Learn more about the work of our research integrity team to safeguard the quality of each article we publish.