↓ Skip to main content

Clinical and regulatory perspectives on biosimilar therapies and intended copies of biologics in rheumatology

Overview of attention for article published in Rheumatology International, February 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (56th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (59th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
62 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
113 Mendeley
Title
Clinical and regulatory perspectives on biosimilar therapies and intended copies of biologics in rheumatology
Published in
Rheumatology International, February 2016
DOI 10.1007/s00296-016-3444-0
Pubmed ID
Authors

Eduardo Mysler, Carlos Pineda, Takahiko Horiuchi, Ena Singh, Ehab Mahgoub, Javier Coindreau, Ira Jacobs

Abstract

Biologics are vital to the management of patients with rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases such as rheumatoid arthritis and other inflammatory and autoimmune conditions. Nevertheless, access to these highly effective treatments remains an unmet medical need for many people around the world. As patents expire for existing licensed biologic (originator) products, biosimilar products can be approved by regulatory authorities and enter clinical use. Biosimilars are highly similar copies of originator biologics approved through defined and stringent regulatory processes after having undergone rigorous analytical, non-clinical, and clinical evaluations. The introduction of high-quality, safe, and effective biosimilars has the potential to expand access to these important medicines. Biosimilars are proven to be similar to the originator biologic in terms of safety and efficacy and to have no clinically meaningful differences. In contrast, "intended copies" are copies of originator biologics that have not undergone rigorous comparative evaluations according to the World Health Organization recommendations, but are being commercialized in some countries. There is a lack of information about the efficacy and safety of intended copies compared with the originator. Furthermore, they may have clinically significant differences in formulation, dosages, efficacy, or safety. In this review, we explore the differences between biosimilars and intended copies and describe key concepts related to biosimilars. Familiarity with these topics may facilitate decision making about the appropriate use of biosimilars for patients with rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 113 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 113 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 23 20%
Student > Bachelor 14 12%
Researcher 11 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 10 9%
Other 9 8%
Other 14 12%
Unknown 32 28%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 27 24%
Medicine and Dentistry 17 15%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 10 9%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 3%
Chemistry 3 3%
Other 19 17%
Unknown 34 30%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 16 April 2018.
All research outputs
#12,660,264
of 22,865,319 outputs
Outputs from Rheumatology International
#1,138
of 2,185 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#129,317
of 297,559 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Rheumatology International
#9
of 22 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,865,319 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,185 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.6. This one is in the 47th percentile – i.e., 47% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 297,559 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 56% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 22 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 59% of its contemporaries.