ArticleThe AAPS journal2026
Best Practices for Performing Analytical and Functional Biosimilarity Assessment of Recombinant Monoclonal Antibody Biosimilars.
Article in The AAPS journal, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Biotherapeutic products have revolutionized the diagnosis and treatment of numerous complex to manage diseases, such as cancer, autoimmune disorders, and infectious diseases. When compared with small molecules (pharmaceuticals), this class of therapeutic agents has proven to be more effective and, in general, have fewer side effects. However, they are more expensive (typically 10-1000 times more) and this limits their global affordability and accessibility. This realization has driven the rise of biosimilars, which are products that have been deemed to be highly similar to a reference product that has been already approved in the regulatory jurisdiction under consideration. A key element in receiving approval for a biosimilar product is for the manufacturer to successfully demonstrate its biosimilarity, an exercise comprising extensive characterization using a gamut of orthogonal, high-resolution analytical and functional tools. Once biosimilarity has been demonstrated, the extent of clinical evaluation that the manufacturer has to perform is significantly curtailed. In this white paper, we discuss various challenges that a manufacturer faces when performing these biosimilarity exercises for monoclonal antibody (mAb) products. Particular attention has been paid to the impact of excipients on these assessments. Using multiple case studies, we elucidate the impact of the removal of these excipients on product stability as well as the impact of their presence on the outcome from any of the analytical and functional tools that are commonly used in these biosimilarity assessments. We also offer best practices for the manufacturers of biosimilars to overcome the challenges associated with the presence of excipients in mAb formulations. Finally, we discuss the number of batches, the development of acceptance criteria and the importance of orthogonal methods in the demonstration of biosimilarity using examples from regulatory filings and guidances.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41709016What 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.