Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32743712›Full record

ReviewPharmaceutical research2020

Formulation and Administration of Biological Medicinal Products".

Irene Krämer, Judith Thiesen, Alain Astier

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Pharmaceutical research, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
–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

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. 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

3 authors.

Irene KrämerPharmacy Department, University Medical Center, Johannes Gutenberg-University Mainz, Mainz, Germany. irene.kraemer@unimedizin-mainz.de.
Judith ThiesenPharmacy Department, University Medical Center, Johannes Gutenberg-University Mainz, Mainz, Germany.
Alain AstierPharmacy Department, Henri Mondor University Hospital, Créteil, France.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Monoclonal antibody (Mabs) containing medicinal products are widely used in clinical practice. Prior to parenteral administration, licensed Mab containing medicinal products are transferred to the ready-to-administer (RTA) forms. Reconstitution and/or preparation should follow the guidelines for Good Reconstitution/Good Preparation Practice. Preparation in the pharmacy must take place within the framework of a suitable quality management system. The responsible pharmacist must apply a risk assessment on the process to ensure the appropriate quality of the RTA preparation, especially because the extent of quality testing is limited by batch size (often one single unit) and time restraints. In these cases, appropriate quality is to be assured by means of qualification activities, environmental monitoring, process validation with growth medium and in-process controls. Correct labelling of the Mab containing RTA preparations includes a suitable storage advice and a defined shelf life. Physicochemical stability of a given Mab preparation can be assessed based on a specific stability study (supplied by the manufacturer in the SmPC or scientific journals, study published by an expert in a peer-reviewed scientific journal). Physicochemical stability studies require the use of various orthogonal physicochemical methods to detect accurately the degradation changes that may result from the deamidation, oxidation, disulfide formation, aggregation or fragmentation during storage. Complementary, biological activity can be measured. Compatibility studies of Mabs and devices used for preparation and administration are still scarce. Microbiological stability of Mab preparations is related to the complexity of the preparation process, the growth supporting nature of the preparation and the integrity of the container or container/closure combination. In use viability tests revealed that the potential of Mab preparations to support microbial growth was similar to that of the pure vehicle solutions used as control solutions. The enumerated microbial counts varied according to the species utilized and the type of Mab preparation. If sterility testing of the individual preparation is impossible, maximum permitted shelf life can be assessed empirically with regard to the maximum shelf lives defined in the USP <797> monograph. Finally, microbiological and physicochemical stability are to be considered concurrently when determining the shelf life of an individual Mab preparation. In each case, shelf life should be limited according to the shorter period of proven stability, either derived from the microbiological or physicochemical stability data.

Indexed as

Antibodies, MonoclonalBiological ProductsDrug CompoundingDrug IndustryDrug StabilityEnvironmental MonitoringHumansPharmaceutical PreparationsProteolysisQuality ControlRisk AssessmentRisk ManagementAntibodies, MonoclonalBiological ProductsPharmaceutical Preparationsantineoplastic activityin-use stabilitymicrobiological stabilitymonoclonal antibodiespharmaceutical preparationphysicochemical stablity

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.