SynthesisEuropean journal of clinical pharmacology2016
Biosimilar erythropoiesis-stimulating agents and the risk of developing anti-drug antibodies-a systematic review.
Synthesis in European journal of clinical pharmacology, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
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
purposeWe systematically reviewed published observational studies and randomized controlled trials (RCT) reports of clinical trials on erythropoiesis-stimulating agents (ESA's). Only studies evaluating the risk of developing anti-drug antibodies (ADA) of both original and biosimilar drugs were chosen.
methodsDatabases including PubMed, EMBASE and Cochrane Library were searched up to 17 March 2015. Two reviewers independently assessed the relevant studies for risk of bias.
resultsTwenty-one publications were included. The overall prevalence of ADA in the studies was about 0.2 to 0.5 %. Most studies were not designed to monitor the development of ADA and often the study duration was too short (less than 6 months) and the patient population too small. Moreover, in many studies, the assays used only determined the presence of ADA and did not measure therapy failure due to ADA. In one RCT, as many as 13 cases (4 %) of ADA were identified.
conclusionADA development seems to be low in short-term studies with ESA. None of the efficacy and safety issues for ESA biosimilars were judged to be adequately addressed in the evaluated literature, with respect to ADA formation, due to the study design and the assay method used.
Indexed as
Identifiers
27444173What 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.