Evidence map›Paper›PMID 21630127›Full record

ArticleThe AAPS journal2011

AAPS workshop report: strategies to address therapeutic protein-drug interactions during clinical development.

Sandhya Girish, Steven W Martin, Mark C Peterson, Lei K Zhang, Hong Zhao, Joseph Balthasar, Raymond Evers, Honghui Zhou, Min Zhu, Lewis Klunk and 4 more

Open access · hybridAbstract readConference Proceedings
In one paragraph

Article in The AAPS journal, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed
6.0field-weighted citation impact, top 4% of its field
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

11 citing papers in PubMed, 36 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. 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

14 authors at 10 institutions in 3 countries.

Sandhya GirishClinical Pharmacology, Department of Pharmacokinetics and Pharmacodynamics, gRED, Genentech, South San Francisco, California, USA. sandhyag@gene.com
Steven W Martin
Mark C Peterson
Lei K Zhang
Hong Zhao
Joseph Balthasar
Raymond Evers
Honghui Zhou
Min Zhu
Lewis Klunk
Chao Han
Eva Gil Berglund
Shiew-Mei Huang
Amita Joshi
Center for Drug Evaluation and Research · USJohnson & Johnson (United States) · USPfizer (United States) · USAmgen (United States) · USBiogen (United States) · USGenentechInstitute for Clinical Pharmacodynamics (United States) · USMedical Products Agency · SEMerck & Co., Inc., Rahway, NJ, USA (United States) · USUniversity at Buffalo, State University of New York · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Therapeutic proteins (TPs) are increasingly combined with small molecules and/or with other TPs. However preclinical tools and in vitro test systems for assessing drug interaction potential of TPs such as monoclonal antibodies, cytokines and cytokine modulators are limited. Published data suggests that clinically relevant TP-drug interactions (TP-DI) are likely from overlap in mechanisms of action, alteration in target and/or drug-disease interaction. Clinical drug interaction studies are not routinely conducted for TPs because of the logistical constraints in study design to address pharmacokinetic (PK)- and pharmacodynamic (PD)-based interactions. Different pharmaceutical companies have developed their respective question- and/or risk-based approaches for TP-DI based on the TP mechanism of action as well as patient population. During the workshop both company strategies and regulatory perspectives were discussed in depth using case studies; knowledge gaps and best practices were subsequently identified and discussed. Understanding the functional role of target, target expression and their downstream consequences were identified as important for assessing the potential for a TP-DI. Therefore, a question-and/or risk-based approach based upon the mechanism of action and patient population was proposed as a reasonable TP-DI strategy. This field continues to evolve as companies generate additional preclinical and clinical data to improve their understanding of possible mechanisms for drug interactions. Regulatory agencies are in the process of updating their recommendations to sponsors regarding the conduct of in vitro and in vivo interaction studies for new drug applications (NDAs) and biologics license applications (BLAs).

Indexed as

Clinical Trials as TopicDrug IndustryDrug InteractionsDrug-Related Side Effects and Adverse ReactionsDrug DiscoveryHumansProteinsProteins

Identifiers

PMID21630127
PMCPMC3144367
OpenAlexW1987706198

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.