ArticlemAbs2014
Bioanalytical strategy used in development of pharmacokinetic (PK) methods that support biosimilar programs.
Article in mAbs, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Pharmacokinetic Comparability of ABP 654, a Biosimilar to Ustekinumab, Administered Either via Prefilled Syringe or Autoinjector in Healthy Adults: Results from a Randomized, Open-Label, Parallel-Group Study.Clinical pharmacology in drug development · 2026Trial
- Pharmacokinetic Similarity of ABP 710, a Proposed Biosimilar to Infliximab: Results From a Randomized, Single-Blind, Single-Dose, Parallel-Group Study in Healthy Subjects.Clinical pharmacology in drug development · 2020Trial
- Efficacy and safety of the biosimilar ABP 501 compared with adalimumab in patients with moderate to severe rheumatoid arthritis: a randomised, double-blind, phase III equivalence study.Annals of the rheumatic diseases · 2017Trial
- Immunogenicity of Biotherapeutics: Causes and Association with Posttranslational Modifications.Journal of immunology research · 2016Review
- Biosimilars advancements: Moving on to the future.Biotechnology progressReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The development of biosimilar products is expected to grow rapidly over the next five years as a large number of approved biologics reach patent expiry. The pathway to regulatory approval requires that similarity of the biosimilar to the reference product be demonstrated through physiochemical and structural characterization, as well as within in vivo studies that compare the safety and efficacy profiles of the products. To support nonclinical and clinical studies pharmacokinetic (PK) assays are required to measure the biosimilar and reference products with comparable precision and accuracy. The most optimal approach is to develop a single PK assay, using a single analytical standard, for quantitative measurement of the biosimilar and reference products in serum matrix. Use of a single PK assay for quantification of multiple products requires a scientifically sound testing strategy to evaluate bioanalytical comparability of the test products within the method, and provide a solid data package to support the conclusions. To meet these objectives, a comprehensive approach with scientific rigor was applied to the development and characterization of PK assays that are used in support of biosimilar programs. Herein we describe the bioanalytical strategy and testing paradigm that has been used across several programs to determine bioanalytical comparability of the biosimilar and reference products. Data from one program is presented, with statistical results demonstrating the biosimilar and reference products were bioanalytically equivalent within the method. The cumulative work has established a framework for future biosimilar PK assay development.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.