ArticleBioDrugs : clinical immunotherapeutics, biopharmaceuticals and gene therapy2015
Classification of Recombinant Biologics in the EU: Divergence Between National Pharmacovigilance Centers.
Article in BioDrugs : clinical immunotherapeutics, biopharmaceuticals and gene therapy, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
BACKGROUND AND
objectiveBiological medicinal products (biologics) are subject to specific pharmacovigilance requirements to ensure that biologics are identifiable by brand name and batch number in adverse drug reaction (ADR) reports. Since Member States collect ADR data at the national level before the data is aggregated at the European Union (EU) level, it is important that an unambiguous understanding of which medicinal products belong to the biological product category exists. This study aimed to identify the level of consistency between Member States regarding the classification of biologics by national authorities responsible for ADR reporting.
methodsA sample list of recombinant biologics from the European Medicines Agency database of European Public Assessment Reports was created to analyze five Member States (Belgium, the Netherlands, Spain, Sweden, and the UK) according to which products were classified as biologics by each Member State. We calculated the Fleiss kappa value to analyze interrater reliability.
resultsA considerable divergence was identified regarding the classification of the 146 recombinant biologics from the sample list: one Member State classified 100 % of the recombinant biologics from the sample list as biologics, whereas the classification rates in the remaining four Member States ranged between 70 and 88 % for products available on the national market. The interrater reliability for 87 products available on the market in all five Member States was considered poor.
conclusionDiscrepancies exist between Member States in the classification of biologics; less divergence exists for common well-known biologics. These findings highlight the need to think about the best approaches to translate EU legislation into national practices. Additionally, we recommend a publicly available and frequently updated list of centrally authorized biologics.
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.