Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29796832›Full record

ReviewDrug safety2018

Safety of Biologics, Including Biosimilars: Perspectives on Current Status and Future Direction.

Ylenia Ingrasciotta, Paola M Cutroneo, Ilaria Marcianò, Thijs Giezen, Fabiola Atzeni, Gianluca Trifirò

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Drug safety, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 29 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
29citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  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

6 authors.

Ylenia IngrasciottaDepartment of Biomedical and Dental Sciences and Morphofunctional Imaging, University of Messina, Via Consolare Valeria, Messina, Italy.
Paola M CutroneoUnit of Clinical Pharmacology, A.O.U. Policlinico "G. Martino", Messina, Italy.
Ilaria MarcianòUnit of Clinical Pharmacology, A.O.U. Policlinico "G. Martino", Messina, Italy.
Thijs GiezenFoundation Pharmacy for Hospitals in Haarlem, Haarlem, The Netherlands.
Fabiola AtzeniUnit of Rheumatology, Department of Clinical and Experimental Medicine, University of Messina, Messina, Italy.
Gianluca TrifiròDepartment of Biomedical and Dental Sciences and Morphofunctional Imaging, University of Messina, Via Consolare Valeria, Messina, Italy. trifirog@unime.it.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1147-7296

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In recent years, marketing of highly innovative and costly biologics improved the management of high-burden diseases such as autoimmune diseases, cancers, and chronic renal failure. Several widely prescribed biologics have recently lost or will shortly lose their patents, thus opening avenues to the marketing of a growing number of biosimilars worldwide, which are products similar in terms of quality, safety, and efficacy to already licensed reference products, thus allowing for potential savings in pharmaceutical expenditure. Numerous debates about the interchangeability between biosimilars and reference products are still ongoing, owing to concerns about potential immunogenicity raised by switching, which may cause a lack of effect and toxicity. Patients successfully treated with biologic therapy may theoretically receive biosimilars to contain costs, if reference product and related biosimilar are judged as interchangeable. However, the positions of regulatory agencies on the interchangeability and automatic substitution of biologics with biosimilars are very different. The benefit-risk profile of biosimilars has been often questioned by clinicians owing to the limited amount of pre-marketing information on clinical efficacy and safety, despite biosimilarity being based on a comparability exercise with the reference product to gain the biosimilar approval. Nevertheless, after more than 10 years of marketing from the first biosimilar approval in Europe, no proof of differences in terms of the safety profile of biosimilars and originators has been reported. In this context, post-marketing evaluation of both biologics and biosimilars safety profiles through analyses from spontaneous reporting databases and claims databases is crucial. An important issue for the pharmacovigilance of biologics concerns the traceability, indicating the brand name and batch number in spontaneous adverse drug reaction reports, but this requirement is not frequently addressed. This review aims to provide an overview of the characteristics and potential challenges in the safety profile assessment of biologics with a focus on the post-marketing setting.

Indexed as

Biological ProductsBiosimilar PharmaceuticalsDrug and Narcotic ControlHumansPatient SafetyPharmacovigilancePolicyProduct Surveillance, PostmarketingRisk AssessmentTherapeutic EquivalencyBiological ProductsBiosimilar Pharmaceuticals

Identifiers

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.