Talk:Biosimilar

message: This article lacks a layman's summary of the term and uses pharmaceutical jargon in the introductory paragraph. Should be edited to improve non-expert readability. Gildindaimoth (talk) 14:35, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: Is this a new term for generic drugs? Do you realize that it is the same as generic agents, but in other words, in fact to keep the prices higher. When you have two "brands" it will make more money that a single brand or one brand and multiple generics :)
: The key is the second paragraph of this article.  With a small molecule drug, it is trivial to demonstrate that the single active ingredient of the generic is identical to the original.  All one really needs to establish is the pharmacokinetic equivalence of the generic drug formulation. Biologics in contrast have much more complicated structures and the active ingredient may not even be a single substance, but a mixture of substances.  Hence it very difficult if not impossible to prove they have identical structures with identical activities. With a biosimilar, in addition to demonstrating pharmacokinetic equivalence of the formulation, one also needs to demonstrate pharmacodynamic equivalence which is much more difficult. Boghog (talk) 12:28, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  The same shit as generic? 

message: The article presently contains:
"Therefore, EMA has granted a marketing authorisation for only a few biosimilars since 2006, including a monoclonal antibody, that was recently approved."
But this is bad wording, because what does "recently approved" mean? 2 years ago? 10 years ago? I think the date has to be mentioned. This would be much better than stating "recently approved", since that is a more subjective wording. 2A02:8388:1604:CA80:0:0:0:2 (talk) 23:23, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Time-specific entries 

message: I just made a rather small edit (Summary: "Was going to fix grammar, but the errors are in content directly quoted - without credit! Edited accordingly.") and then realized the problem is much bigger.  Much of the article is copied from the source used (inadequately) as a reference, starting with the opening paragraph.  I don't see any use of  and feel over my head.  The copyright notice, "Reproduction is authorised provided the source is acknowledged." doesn't seem quite flexible enough to be compatible with our licensing requirements.  And there's the plagiarism issue.  So I've created a listing at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Copyright_problems/2021_June_29 --50.201.195.170 (talk) 21:01, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyvio, Plagiarism 

message: Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources.  Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.)
For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and, if allowed under fair use, may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, providing it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore, such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you.  — Diannaa (talk) 21:02, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyright problem removed