Evidence map›Paper›PMID 22684403›Full record

ReviewThe AAPS journal2012

Challenges and opportunities in achieving bioequivalence for fixed-dose combination products.

Amitava Mitra, Yunhui Wu

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in The AAPS journal, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

14 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Amitava MitraBiopharmaceutics, Product Value Enhancement, Pharmaceutical Sciences and Clinical Supply, Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp., West Point, Pennsylvania 19486, USA. amitava_mitra@merck.com
Yunhui Wu

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Fixed-dose combination (FDC) products are becoming a popular treatment option because of increased patient compliance and convenience, improved clinical effectiveness, and reduced cost to the patient, among several other reasons. A commonly applied approach for approval of a FDC product is demonstrating bioequivalence between the FDC and co-administration of individual mono-products, provided that there is adequate safety and efficacy data for co-administration of the individual agents. However, achieving bioequivalence between the FDC and individual mono-products can be very challenging, and sometimes not possible since combining multiple active ingredients, especially insoluble molecules, in a single drug product could complicate its biopharmaceutical and pharmacokinetic behavior. In this review, some of the major challenges often encountered while assessing bioequivalence during FDC development will be presented along with discussion of future opportunities to facilitate FDC development and approval.

Indexed as

Pharmaceutical PreparationsTherapeutic EquivalencyPharmaceutical Preparations

Identifiers

PMID22684403
PMCPMC3385830

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.