Ten years of clinical experience with biosimilar human growth hormone: a review of safety data
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract: Safety concerns for recombinant human growth hormone (rhGH) treatments include impact on cancer risk, impact on glucose homeostasis, and the formation of antibodies to endogenous/exogenous GH. Omnitrope ® (biosimilar rhGH) was approved by the European Medicines Agency in 2006, with approval granted on the basis of comparable quality, safety, and efficacy to the reference medicine (Genotropin ® ). Additional concerns that may exist in relation to biosimilar rhGH include safety in indications granted on the basis of extrapolation and the impact of changing to biosimilar rhGH from other rhGH treatments. A substantial data set is available to fully understand the safety profile of biosimilar rhGH, which includes data from its clinical development studies and 10 years of post-approval experience. As of June 2016, 106,941,419 patient days (292,790 patient-years) experience has been gathered for biosimilar rhGH. Based on the available data, there have been no unexpected or unique adverse events related to biosimilar rhGH treatment. There is no increased risk of cancer, adverse glucose homeostasis, or immunogenic response with biosimilar rhGH compared with the reference medicine and other rhGH products. The immunogenicity of biosimilar rhGH is also similar to that of the reference and other rhGH products. Physicians should be reassured that rhGH products have a good safety record when used for approved indications and at recommended doses, and that the safety profile of biosimilar rhGH is in keeping with that of other rhGH products. Keywords: recombinant human growth hormone, Omnitrope ® , biosimilar
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.009 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".