Biosimilars for psoriasis: worldwide overview of regulatory guidelines, uptake and implications for dermatology clinical practice
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The introduction of biological drugs for the treatment of patients with psoriasis has revolutionized treatment paradigms and enabled numerous patients to achieve disease control with an acceptable safety profile. However, the high cost of biologics limits access to these medications for the majority of patients worldwide. In recent years, the introduction of biosimilars for inflammatory diseases has become a fast evolving field. The future use of biosimilars offers the potential for decreased cost and increased access to biologics for patients with psoriasis. For approval of biosimilars, different regulatory agencies use highly variable methods for definition, production, approval, marketing and postmarketing surveillance. Due to potential interchangeability between biologics and biosimilars, traceability and pharmacovigilance are required to collect accurate data about adverse events in patients with psoriasis; spontaneous reporting, registries and use of 'big data' should facilitate this process on a global basis. The current article describes biosimilar regulatory guidelines and examples of biosimilar uptake in clinical practice in several countries around the world. As it is apparent that biological therapy treatment decisions may become more physician independent, the International Psoriasis Council recommends that dermatologists should take an active role in the development of biosimilar prescribing policies with their respective healthcare settings and government agencies.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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 it