↓ Skip to main content

US Food and Drug Administration approval of generic versions of complex biologics: implications for the practicing physician using low molecular weight heparins

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Thrombosis and Thrombolysis, January 2012
Altmetric Badge

Citations

dimensions_citation
11 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
21 Mendeley
Title
US Food and Drug Administration approval of generic versions of complex biologics: implications for the practicing physician using low molecular weight heparins
Published in
Journal of Thrombosis and Thrombolysis, January 2012
DOI 10.1007/s11239-012-0680-3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Marc Cohen, Walter P. Jeske, Jose C. Nicolau, Gilles Montalescot, Jawed Fareed

Abstract

Low-molecular-weight heparins (LMWHs) have shown equivalent or superior efficacy and safety to unfractionated heparin as antithrombotic therapy for patients with acute coronary syndromes. Each approved LMWH is a pleotropic biological agent with a unique chemical, biochemical, biophysical and biological profile and displays different pharmacodynamic and pharmacokinetic profiles. As a result, LMWHs are neither equipotent in preclinical assays nor equivalent in terms of their clinical efficacy and safety. Previously, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) cautioned against using various LMWHs interchangeably, however recently, the FDA approved generic versions of LMWH that have not been tested in large clinical trials. This paper highlights the bio-chemical and pharmacological differences between the LMWH preparations that may result in different clinical outcomes, and also reviews the implications and challenges physicians face when generic versions of the original/innovator agents are approved for clinical use.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 21 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Brazil 1 5%
Unknown 20 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 6 29%
Researcher 5 24%
Student > Bachelor 2 10%
Professor 1 5%
Librarian 1 5%
Other 2 10%
Unknown 4 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 9 43%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 10%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 1 5%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 5%
Social Sciences 1 5%
Other 1 5%
Unknown 6 29%