ArticleThe AAPS journal2025
Therapeutic Drug Monitoring of Biologics: Current Practice, Challenges and Opportunities - a Workshop Report.
Article in The AAPS journal, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Biopharmaceutical analysis - current analytical challenges, limitations, and perspectives.Analytical and bioanalytical chemistry · 2026Review
- Commentary: Immunogenicity of dupilumab in adult and pediatric patients with atopic dermatitis.Frontiers in immunology · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
18 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM) for dose modification of biologics has the potential to improve patient outcomes. The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the American Association of Pharmaceutical Scientists (AAPS) hosted the first US-based public workshop on TDM of biologics with contributions from a broad array of interested parties including healthcare providers, clinical pharmacologists, test developers, bioanalysis and immunogenicity scientists, health economics and outcomes research (HEOR) experts and regulators. The key insight was that despite a body of evidence to support TDM in certain therapeutic areas, there remain substantial challenges to widespread clinical implementation. There is a lack of consensus regarding the integration of TDM in clinical guidelines, and a lack of consensus on the cost-effectiveness of TDM; both factors contribute to the difficulty that healthcare providers face in obtaining reimbursement for TDM (both coverage of testing itself, and coverage of potential dosing modifications). The HEOR experts outlined alternative routes to obtaining reimbursement and suggested advocating for changes in coverage policies to promote TDM use in the clinic. Reaching alignment across policy makers, patients and advocacy groups, payers, and healthcare providers, on specific treatment settings where TDM will be clearly beneficial, was identified as an important step to advancing TDM implementation for the benefit of patients.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40087239What 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.