ReviewThe AAPS journal2021
Assessment of Functional Characterization and Comparability of Biotherapeutics: a Review.
Review in The AAPS journal, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Biopharmaceutical analysis - current analytical challenges, limitations, and perspectives.Analytical and bioanalytical chemistry · 2026Review
- Label-free assessment of complement-dependent cytotoxicity of therapeutic antibodies via a whole-cell MALDI mass spectrometry bioassay.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Basic regulatory science behind drug substance and drug product specifications of monoclonal antibodies and other protein therapeutics.Journal of pharmaceutical analysis · 2024Review
- Designing of an extract production protocol for industrial application of cell-free protein synthesis technology: Building from a current best practice to a quality by design approach.Engineering biology · 2023Review
- The FDA's New Guideline "Generally Accepted Scientific Knowledge" (GASK): An Opportunity to Expedite the Approval of Biosimilars.Pharmaceuticals (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Review
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
The development of monoclonal antibody (mAb) biosimilars is a complex process. The key to their successful development and commercialization is an in-depth understanding of the key product attributes that impact safety and efficacy and the strategies to control them. Functional assessment of mAb is a crucial part of the comparability of biopharmaceutical drugs. The development of a relevant and robust functional assay requires an interdisciplinary approach and sufficient flexibility to balance regulatory concerns as well as dynamics and variability during the manufacturing process. Although many advanced tools are available to study and compare the potency and bioactivity of the protein, most of these techniques suffer from major shortcomings that limit their routine use. These include the complexity of the task, establishment of the relevance of the chosen method with the mechanism of action (MOA) of the biosimilar, cost and extended time of analysis, and often the ambiguity in interpretation of the resulting data. To overcome or to address these challenges, the use of multiple orthogonal state-of-the-art techniques is a necessary prerequisite.
Indexed as
Identifiers
34931298What 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.