Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42760467›Full record

ArticleThe AAPS journal2026

A Proposal for the Use of an Innovative Two-Stage PK-Clinical Adaptive Trial in Biosimilar Product Development.

Weijia Mai, Shein-Chung Chow

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Weijia MaiDepartment of Biostatistics and Bioinformatics, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, NC, 27705, USA. weijia.mai@duke.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4924-3858
Shein-Chung ChowDepartment of Biostatistics and Bioinformatics, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, NC, 27705, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9560-2757

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

For approval of biosimilar drug products, the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) recommends a stepwise approach for obtaining the totality-of-the evidence for demonstration of the biosimilarity between a proposed biosimilar product and its reference (innovative) product. The stepwise approach consists of the assessment of analytical similarity, pharmacokinetics (PK) similarity or pharmacodynamics (PD) similarity, and clinical similarity, which may be conducted either sequentially or at the same time. Although the stepwise totality-of-evidence framework is scientifically rigorous, it may impose substantial time, cost, and operational burden on companies and may prolong the overall development and regulatory review timeline. These challenges can delay patient access to lower-cost biologic therapies. To improve efficiency while maintaining evidentiary rigor, under the Fundamental Biosimilarity Assumption that PK similarity is predictive of clinical similarity, we propose a biosimilar study utilizing an innovative two-stage adaptive trial design by combining a PK study and a clinical study. The proposed two-stage PK-clinical adaptive trial is efficient in the sense that (i) it allows decision-making at end of the first stage, (ii) it can avoid duplicated effort in demonstration of biosimilarity, (iii) it will shorten the development process, and most importantly (iv) it may reduce the development cost and may increase the probability of success in biosimilar drug development. Under the proposed two-stage PK-clinical adaptive trial design, a biosimilarity index based on the concept of reproducibility probability was derived for demonstration of biosimilarity. The biosimilarity index can also be applied for assessment of drug interchangeability under FDA's recommended switching designs.

Indexed as

Biosimilar PharmaceuticalsClinical Trials as TopicDrug DevelopmentDrug ApprovalHumansResearch DesignTherapeutic EquivalencyUnited StatesUnited States Food and Drug AdministrationBiosimilar Pharmaceuticalsanalytical similaritybiosimilarity indexclinical similarityfundamental biosimilarity assumptionPK similarity

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.