↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

Emerging patient safety issues under health care reform: follow-on biologics and immunogenicity

Overview of attention for article published in Therapeutics and Clinical Risk Management, December 2011
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (70th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
8 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
25 Mendeley
Title
Emerging patient safety issues under health care reform: follow-on biologics and immunogenicity
Published in
Therapeutics and Clinical Risk Management, December 2011
DOI 10.2147/tcrm.s27495
Pubmed ID
Authors

Bryan A Liang, Timothy Mackey

Abstract

US health care reform includes an abbreviated pathway for follow-on biologics, also known as biosimilars, in an effort to speed up access to these complex therapeutics. However, a key patient safety challenge emerges from such an abbreviated pathway: immunogenicity reactions. Yet immunogenicity is notoriously difficult to predict, and even cooperative approaches in licensing between companies have resulted in patient safety concerns, injury, and death. Because approval pathways for follow-on forms do not involve cooperative disclosure of methods and manufacturing processes by innovator companies and follow-on manufacturers, the potential for expanded immunogenicity must be taken into account from a risk management and patient safety perspective. The US Institute of Safe Medication Practices (ISMP) has principles of medication safety that have been applied in the past to high-risk drugs. We propose adapting ISMP principles to follow-on biologic forms and creating systems approaches to warn, rapidly identify, and alert providers regarding this emerging patient safety risk. This type of system can be built upon and provide lessons learned as these new drug forms are developed and marketed more broadly.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 25 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 25 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 7 28%
Other 3 12%
Researcher 3 12%
Professor 2 8%
Student > Postgraduate 2 8%
Other 3 12%
Unknown 5 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 7 28%
Computer Science 3 12%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 8%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 2 8%
Business, Management and Accounting 1 4%
Other 4 16%
Unknown 6 24%
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 24 October 2014.
All research outputs
#8,261,756
of 25,373,627 outputs
Outputs from Therapeutics and Clinical Risk Management
#434
of 1,323 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#69,549
of 246,216 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Therapeutics and Clinical Risk Management
#4
of 6 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,373,627 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 66th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,323 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.6. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 65% 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 246,216 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 70% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 6 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 2 of them.