ReviewThe AAPS journal2024
Nanosimilars: A Scientific or A Regulatory Debate?
Review in The AAPS journal, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Advances in Biosimilars: A Systematic Review of Machine Learning Applications.Pharmaceuticals (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Precision nanomedicine for anxiety: challenges, opportunities, and future directions in targeted drug delivery.Journal of food and drug analysis · 2025Review
- Flavonoid-Based Nanogels: A Comprehensive Overview.Gels (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Pulmonary Delivery of Antibiotics to the Lungs: Current State and Future Prospects.Pharmaceutics · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The paper highlights the necessity for a robust regulatory framework for assessing nanomedicines and their off-patent counterparts, termed as nanosimilar, which could be considered as 'similar' to the prototype nanomedicine,based on essential criteria describing the 'similarity'. The term 'similarity' should be focused on criteria that describe nanocarriers, encompassing their physicochemical, thermodynamic, morphological, and biological properties, including surface interactions and pharmacokinetics. Nanocarriers can be regarded as advanced self-assembled excipients (ASAEs) due to their complexity and chaotic behavior and should be evaluated by using essential criteria in order for off-patent nanomedicines be termed as nanosimilars, from a regulatory perspective. Collaboration between the pharmaceutical industry, regulatory bodies, and artificial intelligence (AI) startups is pivotal for the precise characterization and approval processes for nanomedicines and nanosimilars and embracing innovative tools and terminology facilitates the development of a sustainable regulatory framework, ensuring safety and efficacy. This crucial shift toward precision R&D practices addresses the complexity inherent in nanocarriers, paving the way for therapeutic advancements with economic benefits.
Indexed as
Identifiers
38955936What 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.