ArticleThe AAPS journal2008
In vitro studies are sometimes better than conventional human pharmacokinetic in vivo studies in assessing bioequivalence of immediate-release solid oral dosage forms.
Article in The AAPS journal, 2008. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 41 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
41 citing papers in PubMed, 157 citations in OpenAlex.
- Scientific and Regulatory Standards for Dissolution Similarity: a Statistical Game of Matchmaking Neither Force to Pass or Nor Fail to Pass.AAPS PharmSciTech · 2026Review
- Mechanistic Physiologically Based Pharmacokinetic Modeling to Predict CYP3A4-Mediated Drug-Drug Interactions of Flumatinib as Both a Victim and a Perpetrator.Drug design, development and therapy · 2026Article
- Vitrification and rapid rewarming of precision-cut liver slices for pharmacological and biomedical research.Bioengineering & translational medicine · 2026Article
- In vitro models of valproic acid to assess neurodevelopmental toxicity: A scoping review.Epilepsia · 2025Article
- Assessment of the Anti-adipogenic Effect ofCurrent pharmaceutical biotechnology · 2025Article
- Advance Nanotechnology-Based Drug Delivery Systems for Alzheimer's Disease: Advancements and Future Perspectives.Current Alzheimer research · 2025Review
- Deciphering the Puzzle: Literature Insights onMicroorganisms · 2024Review
- Challenges in Permeability Assessment for Oral Drug Product Development.Pharmaceutics · 2023Review
- Article
- Article
- Biomaterials and Encapsulation Techniques for Probiotics: Current Status and Future Prospects in Biomedical Applications.Nanomaterials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Review
- Challenges and Opportunities in the Oral Delivery of Recombinant Biologics.Pharmaceutics · 2023Review
- Conditionally immortalised equine skeletal muscle cell lines forBiochemistry and biophysics reports · 2023Article
- Experimental Models for Studying Structural and Functional State of the Pathological Liver (Review).Sovremennye tekhnologii v meditsine · 2023Review
- Stem Cell Therapy: From Idea to Clinical Practice.International journal of molecular sciences · 2022Review
- Bioavailability of arsenic, cadmium, lead and mercury as measured by intestinal permeability.Scientific reports · 2021Article
- A Machine Learning Tool to Predict the Antibacterial Capacity of Nanoparticles.Nanomaterials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Article
- Population Pharmacokinetic Modelling and Simulation to Determine the Optimal Dose of Nanoparticulated Sorafenib to the Reference Sorafenib.Pharmaceutics · 2021Article
- Article
- Robust and Gradient Thickness Porous Membranes forAdvanced materials technologies · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Human pharmacokinetic in vivo studies are often presumed to serve as the "gold standard" to assess product bioequivalence (BE) of immediate-release (IR) solid oral dosage forms. However, when this general assumption is re-visited, it appears that in vitro studies are sometimes better than in vivo studies in assessing BE of IR solid oral dosage forms. Reasons for in vitro studies to sometimes serve as the better method are that in vitro studies: (a) reduce costs, (b) more directly assess product performance, and (c) offer benefits in terms of ethical considerations. Reduced costs are achieved through avoiding in vivo studies where BE is self-evident, where biopharmaceutic data anticipates BE, and where in vivo BE study type II error is high. In vitro studies more directly assess product performance than do conventional human pharmacokinetic BE studies, since in vitro studies focus on comparative drug absorption from the two products, while in vivo BE testing can suffer from complications due to its indirect approach. Regarding ethical considerations, in vitro studies better embrace the principle "No unnecessary human testing should be performed" and can result in faster development. Situations when in vitro test should be viewed as preferred include Class I drugs with rapid dissolution, Class III drugs with very rapid dissolution, and highly variable drugs with rapid dissolution and that are not bio(equivalence)problem drugs. Sponsors of potential in vivo human pharmacokinetic BE testing should be required to justify why in vitro data is insufficient, similar to proposed animal testing requires justification to not employ an in vitro approach.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.