Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33599767›Full record

ReviewAmerican journal of health-system pharmacy : AJHP : official journal of the American Society of Health-System Pharmacists2021

Tackling the challenges of nanomedicines: are we ready?

John B Hertig, Vinod P Shah, Beat Flühmann, Stefan Mühlebach, Gunar Stemer, Jacqueline Surugue, Rob Moss, Tiziana Di Francesco

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in American journal of health-system pharmacy : AJHP : official journal of the American Society of Health-System Pharmacists, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing 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

18 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Advancements in Nanoparticle Characterization.Methods in molecular biology (Clifton, N.J.) · 2024
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Tackling the challenges of nanomedicines: are we ready?American journal of health-system pharmacy : AJHP : official journal of the American Society of Health-System Pharmacists · 2021
    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

8 authors.

John B HertigDepartment of Pharmacy Practice, Butler University College of Pharmacy and Health Sciences, Indianapolis, IN, USA.
Vinod P ShahVPS Consulting, North Potomac, MD, USA.
Beat FlühmannVifor Pharma Ltd, Glattbrugg, Switzerland.
Stefan MühlebachDivision of Clinical Pharmacy & Epidemiology and Hospital Pharmacy, Department of Pharmaceutical Sciences, University of Basel, Basel, Switzerland.
Gunar StemerPharmacy Department, Vienna General Hospital-Medical University Campus, Vienna, Austria.
Jacqueline SurugueHospital Pharmacy Department, Georges Renon General Hospital, Niort, France.
Rob MossHospital Pharmacy Section, International Pharmaceutical Federation, The Hague, Netherlands.
Tiziana Di FrancescoVifor Pharma Ltd, Glattbrugg, Switzerland.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeThis review provides an overview of the proceedings of the symposium "Tackling the Challenges of Nanomedicines: Are We Ready?" organized by the International Pharmaceutical Federation (FIP) Hospital Pharmacy Section and Non-Biological Complex Drugs (NBCDs) Working Group at the 2019 FIP World Congress of Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical Sciences. Debate centered on reasons underlying the current complex regulatory landscape for nanomedicines and their follow-on products (referred to as nanosimilars) and the pivotal role of hospital pharmacists in selecting, handling, and guiding usage of nanomedicines and nanosimilars. SUMMARY: The evaluation and use of nanomedicines are recognized among scientific, pharmaceutical, and regulatory bodies as complex. Interchangeability and substitutability of nanomedicines and nanosimilars are confounded by a lack of pharmaceutical and pharmacological equivalence, reflecting the inherent complex nature of these drug products and manufacturing processes. Consequences include implications for clinical safety and efficacy and, ultimately, comparability. Local regulatory approvals of some nanomedicines have occurred, but there is no standard to ensure streamlined evaluation and use of consistent measures of therapeutic equivalence of reference products and their nanosimilars. Hospital pharmacists are expected to be experts in the selection, handling, and substitution of nanomedicines and familiarize themselves with the limitations of current methods of assessing pharmaceutical and clinical equivalence of nanosimilars in order to ensure informed formulary decision-making and eventual patient benefit.

conclusionSupportive guidance for pharmacists focusing on the substitutability and/or interchangeability of nanomedicines and their nanosimilars is needed. Current FIP guidance for pharmacists on therapeutic interchange and substitution should be extended to include nanomedicines and nanosimilars.

Indexed as

NanomedicineHumansTherapeutic Equivalencynanomedicinenanosimilarspharmacistssubstitutiontherapeutic equivalency

Identifiers

PMID33599767
PMCPMC7929390

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.