Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29164665›Full record

ArticleBritish journal of clinical pharmacology2018

Comparing safety information of biosimilars with their originators: a cross-sectional analysis of European risk management plans.

Leroy R A Lepelaars, Francesca Renda, Luca Pani, Giuseppe Pimpinella, Hubert G M Leufkens, Gianluca Trifirò, Giovanni Tafuri, Aukje K Mantel-Teeuwisse, Francesco Trotta

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in British journal of clinical pharmacology, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Safety profile of trastuzumab originator vs biosimilars: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials.Clinical & translational oncology : official publication of the Federation of Spanish Oncology Societies and of the National Cancer Institute of Mexico · 2025
    Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
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

9 authors.

Leroy R A LepelaarsWHO Collaborating Centre for Pharmaceutical Policy and Regulation, Utrecht Institute for Pharmaceutical Sciences (UIPS), Utrecht University, Utrecht, the Netherlands.
Francesca RendaItalian Medicines Agency (AIFA), Rome, Italy.
Luca PaniItalian Medicines Agency (AIFA), Rome, Italy.
Giuseppe PimpinellaItalian Medicines Agency (AIFA), Rome, Italy.
Hubert G M LeufkensWHO Collaborating Centre for Pharmaceutical Policy and Regulation, Utrecht Institute for Pharmaceutical Sciences (UIPS), Utrecht University, Utrecht, the Netherlands.
Gianluca TrifiròDepartment of Biomedical and Dental Sciences and Morphofunctional Imaging, University of Messina, Messina, Italy.
Giovanni TafuriItalian Medicines Agency (AIFA), Rome, Italy.ORCID 0000-0002-9283-0153
Aukje K Mantel-TeeuwisseWHO Collaborating Centre for Pharmaceutical Policy and Regulation, Utrecht Institute for Pharmaceutical Sciences (UIPS), Utrecht University, Utrecht, the Netherlands.
Francesco TrottaItalian Medicines Agency (AIFA), Rome, Italy.ORCID 0000-0001-6889-8484

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND

aimsBiosimilars have been available in the European Union (EU) since 2006. However, their uptake in routine care is heterogeneous across countries. The aim of the present study was to compare the safety information of biosimilars and their originators based on the information in the European risk management plan (RMP).

methodsA cross-sectional analysis on publicly available regulatory documents (RMPs and Summaries of Product Characteristics) of biosimilars and corresponding originators up to 1 November 2015 was performed. The safety concerns were extracted and merged into general safety concerns, and clinical relevance was assessed. The frequency of safety concerns and the representation of these safety concerns per general safety concern were assessed by either comparing RMPs of biosimilars and originators (if available for both) or comparing RMPs with the Summary of Product Characteristics of the originator.

resultsNineteen biosimilars and six originators were included. Overall, 55 general safety concerns (12 low, 21 medium and 22 highly clinically relevant) were identified. For all active substances, except for infliximab, no or only one difference was found in the listed general safety concerns. Comparison of regulatory documents for infliximab identified three medium clinically relevant general safety concerns more for infliximab biosimilars and two general safety concerns more for its originator.

conclusionBased on publicly available information filed for regulatory purposes, no substantial differences were observed in the reporting of safety information for biosimilars and related originators. A direct comparison between biosimilars and related originators through formal postmarketing studies is needed to evaluate specific safety issues emerging during the products' life cycle.

Indexed as

Product Surveillance, PostmarketingBiological ProductsBiosimilar PharmaceuticalsCross-Sectional StudiesEuropean UnionHumansRisk ManagementBiological ProductsBiosimilar PharmaceuticalsbiosimilarEMAregulatoryrisk management plansafety profile

Identifiers

PMID29164665
PMCPMC5867080

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.