Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24065600›Full record

ReviewThe AAPS journal2014

How to regulate nonbiological complex drugs (NBCD) and their follow-on versions: points to consider.

Huub Schellekens, Sven Stegemann, Vera Weinstein, Jon S B de Vlieger, Beat Flühmann, Stefan Mühlebach, Rogério Gaspar, Vinod P Shah, Daan J A Crommelin

Open access · bronzeAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in The AAPS journal, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 22 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
22citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
4.6field-weighted citation impact, top 5% 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

22 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 115 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Tackling the challenges of nanomedicines: are we ready?American journal of health-system pharmacy : AJHP : official journal of the American Society of Health-System Pharmacists · 2021
    Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. Review
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Nanoparticles in the clinic.Bioengineering & translational medicine · 2016
    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

9 authors at 7 institutions in 7 countries.

Huub SchellekensDepartment of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Utrecht University, P.O. Box 80.082, 3508 TB, Utrecht, The Netherlands, h.schellekens@uu.nl.
Sven Stegemann
Vera Weinstein
Jon S B de Vlieger
Beat Flühmann
Stefan Mühlebach
Rogério Gaspar
Vinod P Shah
Daan J A Crommelin
Utrecht University · NLVifor Pharma (Switzerland) · CHCapgemini (Belgium) · BETeva Pharmaceuticals (Israel) · ILTop Institute Pharma · NLUniversity of Lisbon · PTUniversity of the Potomac · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The aim of this critical review is to reach a global consensus regarding the introduction of follow-on versions of nonbiological complex drugs (NBCD). A nonbiological complex drug is a medicinal product, not being a biological medicine, where the active substance is not a homo-molecular structure, but consists of different (closely related and often nanoparticulate) structures that cannot be isolated and fully quantitated, characterized and/or described by state of the art physicochemical analytical means and where the clinical meaning of the differences is not known. The composition, quality and in vivo performance of NBCD are highly dependent on manufacturing processes of both the active ingredient as well as in most cases the formulation. The challenges posed by the development of follow-on versions of NBCD are illustrated in this paper by discussing the 'families' of liposomes, iron-carbohydrate ('iron-sugar') drugs and glatiramoids. It is proposed that the same principles for the marketing authorization of copies of NBCD as for biosimilars be used: the need for animal and/or clinical data and the need to show similarity in quality, safety and efficacy. The regulatory approach of NBCD will have to take into consideration the specific characteristics of the drugs, their formulation and manufacturing process and the resulting critical attributes to achieve their desired quality, safety and efficacy. As with the biosimilars, for the NBCD product, family-specific methods should be evaluated and applied where scientifically proven, including sophisticated quality methods, pharmacodynamic markers and animal models. Concerning substitution and interchangeability of NBCD, it is also advisable to take biosimilars as an example, i.e. (1) substitution without the involvement of a healthcare professional should be discouraged to ensure traceability of the treatment of individual patients, (2) keep an individual patient on a specific treatment if the patient is doing well and only switch if unavoidable and (3) monitor the safety and efficacy of the new product if switching occurs.

Indexed as

Drug and Narcotic ControlDrugs, GenericLiposomesNanoparticlesProteinsDrugs, GenericLiposomesProteins

Identifiers

PMID24065600
PMCPMC3889532
OpenAlexW1993527690

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.