ArticleThe AAPS journal2018
Risk-Based Comparability Assessment for Monoclonal Antibodies During Drug Development: A Clinical Pharmacology Perspective.
Article in The AAPS journal, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Perspective on Pharmacokinetic Comparability for Biologics Development.Clinical pharmacology and therapeutics · 2026Article
- Comparability of Biologics: Global Principles, Evidentiary Consistency and Unrealized Reliance.BioDrugs : clinical immunotherapeutics, biopharmaceuticals and gene therapy · 2021Article
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
Due to complexities in the structure, function, and manufacturing process of antibody-based therapeutic proteins, comparability assessment for supporting manufacturing changes can sometimes be a challenging task. Regulatory guidance recommends a hierarchical risk-based approach, starting with Chemistry, Manufacturing, and Controls (CMC) analytical characterizations, followed by non-clinical and/or clinical studies to ensure that any potential changes in quality attributes have no adverse impact on efficacy and safety of the product. This review focuses on the changes in quality attributes which may potentially affect the pharmacokinetics (PK), pharmacodynamics (PD), and immunogenicity of a monoclonal antibody (mAb) product, and provides general guidelines in designing non-clinical and clinical PK/PD studies to help support comparability assessments. A decision tree for comparability assessment is proposed depending on the nature of the changes in quality attributes, the potential impact of such changes, and the timing of the manufacturing change relative to the development process. Ideally, the optimization of manufacturing process should take place in the early stage of drug development (i.e., preclinical to phase 2a) as more stringent comparability criteria would have to be met if manufacturing changes occur in the late stage of drug development (i.e., phase 2b and after), and consequently, major changes in manufacturing process should be avoided during confirmatory phase 3 studies and post-approval of drug products.
Indexed as
Identifiers
30324224What 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.