↓ Skip to main content

The introduction of biosimilars of low molecular weight heparins in Europe: a critical review and reappraisal endorsed by the Italian Society for Haemostasis and Thrombosis (SISET) and the Italian…

Overview of attention for article published in Thrombosis Journal, May 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (65th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (62nd percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
2 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
12 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
33 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
The introduction of biosimilars of low molecular weight heparins in Europe: a critical review and reappraisal endorsed by the Italian Society for Haemostasis and Thrombosis (SISET) and the Italian Society for Angiology and Vascular Medicine (SIAPAV)
Published in
Thrombosis Journal, May 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12959-017-0136-2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Davide Imberti, Marco Marietta, Hernan Polo Friz, Claudio Cimminiello

Abstract

Recently, the European Medicines Agency (EMA) authorized the introduction and marketing of Thorinane® and Inhixa®, biosimilars of the Low Molecular Weight Heparin (LMWH) enoxaparin. The authorization path is considerably different from the guidelines published by the EMA in 2009, as well as from the recommendations from the International Society on Thrombosis and Haemostasis published in 2013. Indeed, both of them recommended that LMWHs biosimilars therapeutic equivalence should be demonstrated in at least one adequately designed clinical trial. Shortly after enoxaparin biosimilars approval, EMA published a revised version of its guideline, no longer requiring the execution of a clinical study in patients at risk of venous thromboembolism. Also the assessment of safety shows some relevant flaws, as it relies only on a 20 healthy volunteers study, clearly underpowered to draw any conclusions about the safety profile of the drug. In our opinion, the approach taken by EMA for approval of enoxaparin biosimilars raises serious concerns about their actual, clinical "similarity". On these grounds, with the endorsement of the Italian Society for Haemostasis and Thrombosis (SISET) and the Italian Society for Angiology and Vascular Medicine (SIAPAV), we elaborated the present document aimed at reviewing and reappraising some critical points regarding the introduction of biosimilars of LMWH in Europe. Moreover, we would strongly advise the Italian National Health Authorities not to entrust safety assessment to the post-marketing surveillance only, but to promote well designed and powered studies aimed at establish the actual efficacy and safety of LMWH biosimilars.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 33 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Denmark 1 3%
Unknown 32 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 5 15%
Other 4 12%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 12%
Student > Bachelor 3 9%
Other 6 18%
Unknown 7 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 8 24%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 4 12%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 6%
Immunology and Microbiology 2 6%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 3%
Other 6 18%
Unknown 10 30%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 09 September 2021.
All research outputs
#6,786,775
of 23,907,431 outputs
Outputs from Thrombosis Journal
#115
of 360 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#104,568
of 313,422 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Thrombosis Journal
#4
of 8 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,907,431 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 70th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 360 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.8. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 66% of its peers.
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 313,422 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 65% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 8 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 4 of them.