Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29715552›Full record

ReviewClinical microbiology and infection : the official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases2019

Monoclonal antibodies as anti-infective products: a promising future?

E Pelfrene, M Mura, A Cavaleiro Sanches, M Cavaleri

Open access · bronzeAbstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Clinical microbiology and infection : the official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 47 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
47citing papers in PubMed
4.5field-weighted citation impact, top 4% 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

47 citing papers in PubMed, 89 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Anti-Hcp1 Monoclonal Antibody Is Protective againstPathogens (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023
    Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Review
  20. Review
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

4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

E PelfreneOffice of Anti-infectives and Vaccines, Human Medicines Evaluation Division, European Medicines Agency, London, UK. Electronic address: eric.pelfrene@ema.europa.eu.
M MuraOffice of Anti-infectives and Vaccines, Human Medicines Evaluation Division, European Medicines Agency, London, UK.
A Cavaleiro SanchesQuality Office, Human Medicines Research & Development Support Division, European Medicines Agency, London, UK.
M CavaleriOffice of Anti-infectives and Vaccines, Human Medicines Evaluation Division, European Medicines Agency, London, UK.
European Medicines Agency · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe paucity of licensed monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) in the infectious diseases arena strongly contrasts with the ready availability of these therapeutics for use in other conditions.

aimsThis narrative review aims to assess the potential of monoclonal antibody-based interventions for infectious diseases. SOURCES: A review of the literature via the Medline database was performed and complemented by published official documents on licensed anti-infective mAbs. In addition, ongoing trials were identified through a search of the clinical trial registration platform ClinicalTrials.gov. CONTENT: We identified the few infections for which mAbs have been added to the therapeutic armamentarium and stressed their potential in representing a readily available protection tool against biothreats and newly emerging and reemerging infectious agents. In reviewing the historical context and main features of mAbs, we assert a potentially wider applicability and cite relevant examples of ongoing therapeutic developments. Factors hindering successful introduction of mAbs on a larger scale are outlined and thoughts are offered on how to possibly address some of these limitations. IMPLICATIONS: mAbs may represent important tools in treating or preventing infections occurring with reasonably sufficient prevalence to justify demand and for which existing alternatives are not deemed fully adequate. Future initiatives need to address the prohibitive costs encountered in the development process. The feasibility of more large-scale administration of alternative modalities merits further exploration. In order to ensure optimal prospect of regulatory success, an early dialogue with competent authorities is encouraged.

Indexed as

Antibodies, MonoclonalAnti-Infective AgentsClinical Trials as TopicCommunicable Disease ControlCommunicable DiseasesDrug ApprovalDrug Resistance, MultipleHumansImmunotherapyLicensureAntibodies, MonoclonalAnti-Infective AgentsAntimicrobial resistanceBiothreatsImmunotherapyMonoclonal antibody therapeuticsMultifunctional Antibodies

Identifiers

PMID29715552
PMCPMC7128139
OpenAlexW2801386437

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.