↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

Focus on biosimilar etanercept – bioequivalence and interchangeability

Overview of attention for article published in Biologics: Targets & Therapy, August 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#39 of 284)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (80th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
policy
1 policy source

Citations

dimensions_citation
16 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
57 Mendeley
Title
Focus on biosimilar etanercept – bioequivalence and interchangeability
Published in
Biologics: Targets & Therapy, August 2018
DOI 10.2147/btt.s126854
Pubmed ID
Authors

Fabrizio Cantini, Maurizio Benucci

Abstract

The recent approval of reference etanercept (re-ETN) biosimilars SB4, GP2015, and HD203 produced relevant changes in the management of rheumatoid arthritis (RA), psoriatic arthritis, and ankylosing spondylitis due to the considerably lower cost of these products and the consequent savings. To review the pharmacodynamics, pharmacokinetics, efficacy, and safety of ETN biosimilars when employed as first-line therapy or after transition from re-ETN. Patients' acceptability was also addressed. The available literature was reviewed through a search of PubMed database, and abstract books of the American College for Rheumatology and European League Against Rheumatism annual meetings. SB4, GP2015, and HD203 were licensed by the US, European and South Korea regulatory agencies after the bioequivalence to re-ETN was demonstrated through pharmacodynamic and pharmacokinetic studies, and randomized, head to head, controlled trials. Based on the evidence of efficacy and safety of SB4 and HD203 in RA, and of GP2015 in psoriasis, by the extrapolation principle, the three biosimilars were approved for all indications licensed for re-ETN, and the regulatory agencies introduced the interchangeability from the originator to the biosimilar. Extrapolation of indications, and particularly interchangeability raised relevant concerns among the rheumatologists due to the low level of evidence supporting the switching strategy (or transition). Rheumatologists' concerns are oriented toward the relevant number of biosimilar discontinuations after the transition ranging from 7%-17% over a short-term follow-up period. As resulted from two studies, at least 20%-30% of the patients claimed more exhaustive information on the switching procedure. Based on the available evidence, re-ETN biosimilars may be a good option as first-line therapy, while further data are needed to definitively establish the efficacy, safety, and the economic reflexes of transitioning from re-ETN.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 57 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 57 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 15 26%
Student > Master 8 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 11%
Other 5 9%
Professor 2 4%
Other 7 12%
Unknown 14 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 15 26%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 11 19%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 5%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 4%
Computer Science 2 4%
Other 6 11%
Unknown 18 32%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 10. 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 17 February 2021.
All research outputs
#3,417,018
of 25,385,509 outputs
Outputs from Biologics: Targets & Therapy
#39
of 284 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#65,038
of 341,886 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Biologics: Targets & Therapy
#1
of 3 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,385,509 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 86th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 284 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.2. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% 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 341,886 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 3 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them