ArticleThe AAPS journal2018
The Assessment of Quality Attributes for Biosimilars: a Statistical Perspective on Current Practice and a Proposal.
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 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Practical Issues Concerning the Approval and Use of Biosimilar Drugs for the Treatment of Multiple Sclerosis in Latin America.Neurology and therapy · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Establishing comparability of the originator and its biosimilar at the structural and functional level, by analyzing so-called quality attributes, is an important step in biosimilar development. The statistical assessment of quality attributes is currently in the focus of attention because both the FDA and the EMA are working on regulatory documents for advising companies on the use of statistical approaches for strengthening their comparability claim. In this paper, we first discuss "comparable" and "not comparable" settings and propose a shift away from the usual comparison of the mean values: we argue that two products can be considered comparable if the range of the originator fully covers the range of the biosimilar. We then introduce a novel statistical testing procedure (the "tail-test") and compare the operating characteristics of the proposed approach with approaches currently used in practice. In contrast to the currently used approaches, we note that our proposed methodology is compatible with the proposed understanding of comparability and has, compared to other frequently applied range-based approaches, the advantage of being a formal statistical testing procedure which controls the patient's risk and has reasonable large-sample properties.
Indexed as
Identifiers
30483892What 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.