ArticleCPT: pharmacometrics & systems pharmacology2026
Use of Modeling and Simulation to Inform the Development of Monoclonal Antibodies to Treat Moderate-to-Severe Asthma: A Retrospective Review of EMA Centralized Procedure From 2014 to 2024.
Article in CPT: pharmacometrics & systems pharmacology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Use of Modeling and Simulation to Inform the Development of Monoclonal Antibodies to Treat Moderate-to-Severe Asthma: A Retrospective Review of EMA Centralized Procedure From 2014 to 2024.CPT: pharmacometrics & systems pharmacology · 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
We present here a repository of key regulatory questions answered in centralized procedures and evaluate the place of modeling and simulation in marketing authorization process for biologics approved for the treatment of moderate-to-severe asthma from 2014 to 2024. This was done consistently with the ICH M15 recommendations and the ERAMET project that consistently aim to define the framework for assessment of model informed drug development evidence to inform decision-making. We carried out a search for marketing authorization applications for the five approved monoclonal antibodies in the treatment of asthma from 2014 to 2024. We translated the information into essential regulatory questions and classified the questions based on the level of the questions and their granularity. Credibility activities were performed by applying the credibility framework of the ICH M15 guidelines to questions answered by modeling and simulation methods. A total of 190 questions were extracted including 74 questions related to efficacy, 86 to safety, and 30 questions related to pharmacokinetics. The proportion of questions answered oscillated between 51% and 65% for each drug. Modeling and simulation methods were used to answer 25% of the questions. These methods are predominantly used to address pharmacokinetics questions, with 60% of these questions answered in at least one marketing authorization application using these methods. Credibility matrices were fulfilled for questions answered by modeling and simulation methods. We identified the types and roles of modeling and simulation approaches used in the development of monoclonal antibodies for treat moderate-to-severe asthma approved from 2014 to 2024.
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.