Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26033698›Full record

ArticleThe AAPS journal2015

Current Scientific and Regulatory Approaches for Development of Orally Inhaled and Nasal Drug Products: Overview of the IPAC-RS/University of Florida Orlando Inhalation Conference.

Guenther Hochhaus, Craig Davis-Cutting, Martin Oliver, Sau L Lee, Svetlana Lyapustina

Abstract readConference Proceedings
In one paragraph

Article in The AAPS journal, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. 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

5 authors.

Guenther HochhausDepartment of Pharmaceutics College of Pharmacy, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida, USA.
Craig Davis-Cutting
Martin Oliver
Sau L Lee
Svetlana Lyapustina

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This article summarizes discussions at the March 2014 conference organized by the University of Florida (UF) and International Pharmaceutical Aerosol Consortium on Regulation and Science (IPAC-RS), entitled "Orlando Inhalation Conference: Approaches in International Regulation." The special focus of the conference was on global scientific and regulatory issues associated with the testing and demonstration of equivalence for the registration of orally inhaled drug products (OIDPs) in the United States, Europe, Brazil, China, and India. The scope included all types of OIDPs throughout their lifecycle, e.g., innovator/brand-name products, generics, modifications due to lifecycle management, device changes, etc. Details were presented for the U.S. "weight of evidence approach" for registration of generic products (which includes demonstration of in vitro and in vivo equivalence, as well as quantitative and qualitative sameness, and device similarity). The European "stepwise" approach was elucidated, and the thinking of regulatory agencies in the major emerging markets was clarified. The conference also highlighted a number of areas that would benefit from further research and discussion, especially around patient/device interface and human factor studies, statistical methods and criteria for demonstrating equivalence, the relative roles of in vivo and in vitro tests, and appropriate designs and metrics for in vivo studies of inhaled drugs.

Indexed as

Drug DesignLegislation, DrugAdministration, InhalationAdministration, IntranasalDrugs, GenericHumansPharmaceutical PreparationsTherapeutic EquivalencyDrugs, GenericPharmaceutical Preparations

Identifiers

PMID26033698
PMCPMC4540745

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.