This research identifies three challenges in traditional Chinese medicine resource management, suggesting collaboration improves quality control and ensures resource availability.
The research and development of new traditional Chinese medicine(TCM) drugs has entered a phase integrating high-quality development with resource assurance. Drawing from 18 new TCM drug registration resource assessment projects, this study systematically summarizes three core challenges in TCM resource management:(1) industrial chain complexity amplifies quantity-quality risks through material heterogeneity(multi-origin variations and wild-to-cultivated genetic shifts) and production chain coupling(germplasm-cultivation-processing whole-chain volatility);(2) structural misalignment among institutions, enterprises, and producers leads to disattachment of research and development from industrial demand;(3) technical barriers exist in quality control systems, involving producing area shift, cultivation evolution, and harvesting and processing innovations. This study proposes a four-dimensional assessment framework prioritizing "species stabilization, quantity availability, quality control, and quality optimization", which is supported by an early-warning system addressing multi-origin selection, adulterant control, endangered species protection, and standardized cultivation. Risk management strategies emphasize supply chain traceability, particularly for imported and ethnic medicinal materials. Using Epimedii Folium as a case study, this study demonstrates a tripartite industrial upgrade paradigm integrating premium germplasm, cultivation technology, and quality control, ultimately establishing an innovation mechanism with deep academia-industry collaboration. The research advocates transforming resource assessment from compliance checks to strategic decision-making tools through enhanced academia-industry collaboration, so as to provide resource assurance for high-quality TCM development.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Guo et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: