| Title |
Biosimilars in the management of neutropenia: focus on filgrastim
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Biologics: Targets & Therapy, February 2016
|
| DOI | 10.2147/btt.s73580 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Désirée Caselli, Simone Cesaro, Maurizio Aricò |
| Abstract |
Advances in chemotherapy and surgery allows the majority of patients to survive cancer diseases. Yet, the price may be a proportion of patients dying of complications due to treatment-induced infectious complications, such as neutropenia. With the aim of decreasing morbidity and mortality related to infectious complications, recombinant human granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF), filgrastim, and pegylated filgrastim have been used to reduce time and degree of neutropenia. A biosimilar is a copy of an approved original biologic medicine whose data protection has expired. The patent for filgrastim expired in Europe in 2006 and in the US in 2013. This review analyses the available evidence to be considered in order to design a strategy of use of G-CSF and its biosimilars. The clinical and safety outcomes of biosimilars are well within the range of historically reported data for originator filgrastim. This underscores the clinical effectiveness and safety of biosimilar filgrastim in daily clinical practice. Biosimilars can play an important role by offering the opportunity to reduce costs, thus contributing to the financial sustainability of treatment programs. |
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.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| India | 1 | 25% |
| Unknown | 3 | 75% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 2 | 50% |
| Scientists | 1 | 25% |
| Members of the public | 1 | 25% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 52 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | 2% |
| Brazil | 1 | 2% |
| Unknown | 50 | 96% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 10 | 19% |
| Student > Bachelor | 8 | 15% |
| Researcher | 7 | 13% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 4 | 8% |
| Other | 4 | 8% |
| Other | 9 | 17% |
| Unknown | 10 | 19% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 18 | 35% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 8 | 15% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 5 | 10% |
| Social Sciences | 3 | 6% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 2 | 4% |
| Other | 5 | 10% |
| Unknown | 11 | 21% |
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 13 March 2016.
All research outputs
#8,557,576
of 25,582,611 outputs
Outputs from Biologics: Targets & Therapy
#107
of 274 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#130,969
of 407,552 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Biologics: Targets & Therapy
#3
of 7 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,582,611 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 274 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.4. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 60% 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 407,552 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 67% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 7 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.