Evidence map›Paper›PMID 21455817›Full record

ArticleAAPS PharmSciTech2011

Analysis of two commercially available bortezomib products: differences in assay of active agent and impurity profile.

Stephen R Byrn, Patrick A Tishmack, Mark J Milton, Helgi van de Velde

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in AAPS PharmSciTech, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Stephen R ByrnDepartment of Industrial and Physical Pharmacy, Purdue University, West Lafayette, Indiana 47906, USA. stephen.byrn@verizon.net
Patrick A Tishmack
Mark J Milton
Helgi van de Velde

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The analytical properties of two commercially available bortezomib products (VELCADE(®) and Bortenat) were compared using nuclear magnetic resonance, mass spectrometry, high-performance liquid chromatography, and gas chromatography. The data showed differences between the two products. Based on these data, Bortenat samples contained more active ingredients than indicated by the label (mean, 116.5% and 117.9% of label, in 2-mg and 3.5-mg vials, respectively). In comparison, VELCADE samples contained a mean of 99.3% of active ingredient, which was consistent with the approved specification range (US, 90-110%; EU, 95-105%). Clinical data demonstrate that patients exposed to higher than recommended doses of bortezomib on the standard twice-weekly dosing schedule are likely to have an increased risk of major toxicities. Bortenat 2-mg vials contained an isovaleraldehyde impurity; the origin of this is unknown. Additionally, the ratio of boronic acid to boronic ester differed between Bortenat 2 mg (0.27:1) and 3.5 mg (0.13:1) and VELCADE (0.10:1) samples reconstituted in saline indicating that the Bortenat product is not equivalent to the VELCADE product.

Indexed as

Drug ContaminationBoronic AcidsBortezomibChemistry, PharmaceuticalHumansPyrazinesRandom AllocationBoronic AcidsBortezomibPyrazines

Identifiers

PMID21455817
PMCPMC3134677

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.