ArticleJournal of market access & health policy2023
Proposal of International Council for Harmonization (ICH) Guideline for the Approval of Biosimilars.
Article in Journal of market access & health policy, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 15 citations in OpenAlex.
- Smart nanoparticle vaccines integrate nanotechnology artificial intelligence and immunoengineering for precision immunization.Discover nano · 2026Review
- Regulatory Definitions and Classification of Biosimilar Medications Across the 6 Regions of the World Health Organization: A Scoping Review.JAMA health forum · 2026Article
- Non-signaling protein therapeutics: a mechanism-based regulatory framework to modernize biosimilar development and global harmonization.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Review
- Harnessing the AI/ML in Drug and Biological Products Discovery and Development: The Regulatory Perspective.Pharmaceuticals (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Bridging the gap: The future of biosimilars regulations.Human vaccines & immunotherapeutics · 2024Article
- Factors that Influence Healthcare Professionals' Intentions towards Biosimilars.Innovations in pharmacy · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 3 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: Since the initial release of biosimilars 18 years ago, regulations for their licensing have changed considerably; however, there is no global consensus on these regulations. Establishing harmonized regulatory guidelines for the approval of biosimilars with support from the ICH, an independent, non-profit association under Swiss law, will significantly enhance the affordability of biological drugs. Methods: Regulatory guidelines from the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), European Medicines Agency (EMA), Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA), and World Health Organization (WHO) were analyzed for historical changes and elements critical to the safety and efficacy of biosimilars. Results: Analysis of all EMA and FDA filings show that none of the animal testing and clinical efficacy testing failed because animals do not have the required receptors to initiate pharmacologic responses, and efficacy studies cannot be statistically powered to conclude any results. New analytical technologies will enable good biosimilarity determination, avoiding both tests. Conclusion: Scientifically based ICH guidelines that remove redundant studies will reduce development costs, improve safety, and allow global drug distribution based on single compliance. These guidelines are particularly necessary for emerging countries lacking the expertise and resources to evaluate biosimilar filings.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.