Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35466023›Full record

ArticleBiologicals : journal of the International Association of Biological Standardization2022

WHO informal consultation on revision of guidelines on evaluation of similar biotherapeutic products, virtual meeting, 30 June - 2 July 2021.

Meenu Wadhwa, Hye-Na Kang, Robin Thorpe, Ivana Knezevic, following participants of the WHO informal consultation on revision of guidelines on evaluation of similar biotherapeutic products, P Aprea, M-C Bielsky, N Ekman, H-K Heim, J Joung and 19 more

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Biologicals : journal of the International Association of Biological Standardization, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
0.3field-weighted citation impact, top 46% of its field
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

0 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

29 authors at 13 institutions in 10 countries.

Meenu WadhwaNational Institute for Biological Standards and Control, Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency, Potters Bar, United Kingdom.
Hye-Na KangWorld Health Organization, Department of Essential Medicines and Health Products, Avenue Appia 20, CH-1211, Geneva, Switzerland. Electronic address: kangh@who.int.
Robin ThorpeIndependent Expert, Welwyn, United Kingdom.
Ivana KnezevicWorld Health Organization, Department of Essential Medicines and Health Products, Avenue Appia 20, CH-1211, Geneva, Switzerland.
following participants of the WHO informal consultation on revision of guidelines on evaluation of similar biotherapeutic products
P ApreaAdministración Nacional de Medicamentos, Alimentos y Tecnología Medica, Argentina.
M-C BielskyMedicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency, United Kingdom.
N EkmanFinnish Medicines Agency, Finland.
H-K HeimFederal Institute for Drugs and Medical Devices, Germany.
J JoungMinistry of Food and Drug Safety, Republic of Korea.
P KurkiUniversity of Helsinki, Finland.
E LacanaUnited States Food and Drug Administration, USA.
C NjueHealth Canada, Canada.
E NkansahFood and Drug Authority, Ghana.
M SavkinaFederal State Budgetary Institution Scientific Centre for Expert Evaluation of Medicinal Products, Russian Federation.
R ThorpeIndependent Expert, United Kingdom.
T YamaguchiPharmaceuticals and Medical Devices Agency, Japan.
M WadhwaNational Institute for Biological Standards and Control, Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency, United Kingdom.
J WangHealth Canada, Canada; National Institutes for Food and Drug Control, China.
M WeiseFederal Institute for Drugs and Medical Devices, Germany.
E Wolff-HolzPaul-Ehrlich-Institut, Germany.
Other participants
Representatives of the Developing Countries Vaccine Manufacturers Network
Representatives of the Emerging Biopharmaceutical Manufacturers Network
Representatives of the IFPMA
Representatives of IGBA
Representative of the Latin American Association of Pharmaceutical Industries
Representative of the Singapore Association of Pharmaceutical Industries
WHO Secretariat
Federal Institute for Drugs and Medical Devices · DEPaul Ehrlich Institut · DEWorld Health Organization · CHHealth Canada · CAInstitute of Professional Evaluation · RUNational Institute for Biological Standards and Control · GBNational Institutes for Food and Drug Control · CNPharmaceuticals and Medical Devices Agency · JPAdministración Nacional de Medicamentos, Alimentos y Tecnología MédicaFinnish Medicines Agency Fimea · FIMinistry of Food and Drug Safety · KRUnited States Food and Drug Administration · USUniversity of Helsinki · FI

Funding

World Health Organization 001
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The WHO informal consultation was held to promote the revision of WHO guidelines on evaluation of similar biotherapeutic products (SBPs) adopted by the Expert Committee on Biological Standardization (ECBS) in 2009. It was agreed in the past consultations that the evaluation principles in the guidelines are still valid, but a review was recommended to provide more clarity and case-by-case flexibility. The opportunity was therefore taken to review the experience and identify areas where the current guidance could be more permissive without compromising its basic principles, and where additional explanation could be provided regarding the possibility of reducing the amount of data needed for regulatory approval. The meeting participants applauded the leading role taken by the WHO in providing a much-needed streamlined approach for development and evaluation of SBPs which will provide efficient and cost-effective product development and increase patient access to treatments. It was recognized that the principles as currently described in the draft WHO guidelines are based on sound science and experience gained over the last fifteen years of biosimilar approvals. However, since these guidelines when finalised will constitute the global standard for biosimilar evaluation and assist national regulatory authorities in establishing revised guidance and regulatory practice in this complex area, it was felt that further revision and clarity on certain perspectives in specific areas was necessary to dispel uncertainties arising in the current revised version. This report describes the principles in the draft guidelines, including topics discussed and consensus reached.

Indexed as

Biosimilar PharmaceuticalsHumansReferral and ConsultationWorld Health OrganizationBiosimilar PharmaceuticalsBiosimilarRegulatory guidelinesRevisionSimilar biotherapeutic productWHO

Identifiers

PMID35466023
PMCPMC9109723
OpenAlexW4224288018

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.