SynthesisEuropean journal of clinical pharmacology2014
Is the decision on the use of biosimilar growth hormone based on high quality scientific evidence? - a systematic review.
Synthesis in European journal of clinical pharmacology, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Biosimilar erythropoiesis-stimulating agents and the risk of developing anti-drug antibodies-a systematic review.European journal of clinical pharmacology · 2016Pooled it
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe authors carried out a systematic and critical review of the scientific literature regarding the possible development of neutralising antibodies developed in patients treated with growth hormone biosimilars (defined as a drug expected to be similar to the originator or original pharmaceutical -European Medicines Agency) as compared to the reference drug. As a consequence, we discovered two major issues, namely, the poor quality of the comparative clinical trials and the poor quality of the antibody assays used during the trials.
methodsThe literature review was performed according to the principle of the Cochrane Collaboration and SBU. The electronic literature search included the databases PubMed, EMBASE and The Cochrane Library up to December 2012. Two independent reviewers assessed abstracts and full-text articles.
resultsThe search identified 1,553 abstracts related to the subject. Only six articles contained data on biosimilar growth hormone or antibody results obtained with appropriate methods. None of the studies fulfilled the criteria for high quality randomised controlled trials. Qualitative rather than quantitative assays were used for monitoring antibody formation.
conclusionsIt is our firm opinion , that since biosimilars are not identical, emphasis must be placed on the quality of the comparative clinical trials performed and the quality of the analytical studies in order to guarantee patient safety. Clinical trials should follow established quality rules for controlled comparative randomised clinical trials. A whole set of new guidelines is required.
Indexed as
Identifiers
24569841What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.