Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27536293›Full record

ReviewFrontiers in microbiology2016

Adapting Drug Approval Pathways for Bacteriophage-Based Therapeutics.

Callum J Cooper, Mohammadali Khan Mirzaei, Anders S Nilsson

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Frontiers in microbiology, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 84 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
84citing papers in PubMed
19.7field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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

84 citing papers in PubMed, 166 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Delivering living medicines with biomaterials.Nature reviews. Materials · 2025
    Article
  12. Antibiotic Resistance ofPharmaceuticals (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025
    Review
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Review
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Bacteriophage therapy for drug-resistantFrontiers in cellular and infection microbiology · 2024
    Review
  20. Article

24 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Callum J CooperDepartment of Molecular Biosciences, The Wenner-Gren Institute, Stockholm University Stockholm, Sweden.
Mohammadali Khan MirzaeiDepartment of Molecular Biosciences, The Wenner-Gren Institute, Stockholm University Stockholm, Sweden.
Anders S NilssonDepartment of Molecular Biosciences, The Wenner-Gren Institute, Stockholm University Stockholm, Sweden.
Stockholm University · SE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The global rise of multi-drug resistant bacteria has resulted in the notion that an "antibiotic apocalypse" is fast approaching. This has led to a number of well publicized calls for global funding initiatives to develop new antibacterial agents. The long clinical history of phage therapy in Eastern Europe, combined with more recent in vitro and in vivo success, demonstrates the potential for whole phage or phage based antibacterial agents. To date, no whole phage or phage derived products are approved for human therapeutic use in the EU or USA. There are at least three reasons for this: (i) phages possess different biological, physical, and pharmacological properties compared to conventional antibiotics. Phages need to replicate in order to achieve a viable antibacterial effect, resulting in complex pharmacodynamics/pharmacokinetics. (ii) The specificity of individual phages requires multiple phages to treat single species infections, often as part of complex cocktails. (iii) The current approval process for antibacterial agents has evolved with the development of chemically based drugs at its core, and is not suitable for phages. Due to similarities with conventional antibiotics, phage derived products such as endolysins are suitable for approval under current processes as biological therapeutic proteins. These criteria render the approval of phages for clinical use theoretically possible but not economically viable. In this review, pitfalls of the current approval process will be discussed for whole phage and phage derived products, in addition to the utilization of alternative approval pathways including adaptive licensing and "Right to try" legislation.

Indexed as

adaptive pathwaysalternative licensingbacteriophagephage therapypharmaceutical regulation

Identifiers

PMID27536293
PMCPMC4971087
OpenAlexW2490799500

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.