Regulatory Divergence in Narrow Therapeutic Index Drugs: A Comparative Review of the US, EU, Japan, Canada, and South Korea

Generic drugs offer cost-effective alternatives to brand-name medications while ensuring comparable safety and efficacy. However, narrow therapeutic index drugs (NTIDs), which require precise dosing due to narrow margins between therapeutic and toxic concentrations, present additional regulatory challenges. Concerns regarding the interchangeability of generic NTIDs are amplified by international variation in definitions, bioequivalence (BE) standards, and regulatory approaches. This systematic review compares NTID-related regulatory frameworks across major authorities to inform the development of the ICH M13C guideline and foster global harmonization of evaluation standards for generic NTIDs. A comprehensive comparative analysis was conducted of NTID-related regulatory frameworks in five ICH member countries (United States [US], European Union [EU], Japan, Canada, and South Korea), with Egypt, Jordan, and Saudi Arabia included as reference countries. Data were obtained from literature searches and official regulatory sources, focusing on NTID definitions, BE standards, and NTID lists. Marked regulatory divergence was observed. South Korea uniquely incorporates quantitative pharmacological and toxicological criteria into NTID definitions. The US employs the most stringent NTID BE standards, utilizing a fully replicated design, reference-scaled average bioequivalence (RSABE), and variability assessment. Only cyclosporine and tacrolimus are classified as NTIDs by all five core countries. Variability in NTID lists and evaluation criteria complicates global harmonization efforts. Achieving consistent evaluation and safe international use of generic NTIDs requires global alignment on definitions, BE criteria, and NTID lists. This review supports integrating real-world data into regulatory decision-making and advances the ICH M13C guideline.