ReviewThe AAPS journal2016
BCS Biowaivers: Similarities and Differences Among EMA, FDA, and WHO Requirements.
Review in The AAPS journal, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 27 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
27 citing papers in PubMed.
- Chinese- and French-Manufactured Immediate-Release GlucophageDrugs in R&D · 2022Trial
- Application of New Approach Methodologies to Improve Oral Biopharmaceutic Assessments.Pharmaceutics · 2026Review
- Scientific and Regulatory Standards for Dissolution Similarity: a Statistical Game of Matchmaking Neither Force to Pass or Nor Fail to Pass.AAPS PharmSciTech · 2026Review
- Transarterial Chemoembolization for Patients With Hepatocellular Carcinoma Using Miriplatin Without the Need for Hydration.Clinical and translational science · 2025Article
- Biowaiver based on biopharmaceutics classification system: Considerations and requirements.Pharmaceutical science advances · 2024Review
- Article
- Article
- Article
- Dissolution Profile Similarity Assessment-Best Practices, Decision Trees and Global Harmonization.The AAPS journal · 2023Article
- Pharmacokinetics and bioequivalence of two pomalidomide capsules in healthy chinese subjects under fasting and fed conditions.Investigational new drugs · 2023Article
- Current Approaches for Dissolution Similarity Assessment, Requirements, and Global Expectations.The AAPS journal · 2022Article
- Evaluation of Excipient Risk in BCS Class I and III Biowaivers.The AAPS journal · 2022Review
- SeDeM tool-driven full factorial design for osmotic drug delivery of tramadol HCl: Formulation development, physicochemical evaluation, andFrontiers in pharmacology · 2022Article
- The Influence of Omeprazole on the Dissolution Processes of pH-Dependent Magnetic Tablets Assessed by Pharmacomagnetography.Pharmaceutics · 2021Article
- A survey and optical microscopy in pilot comparative analysis of generic and original nimesulide granules.Heliyon · 2021Article
- ICH Guideline for Biopharmaceutics Classification System-Based Biowaiver (M9): Toward Harmonization in Latin American Countries.Pharmaceutics · 2021Article
- Article
- On Absorption Modeling and Food Effect Prediction of Rivaroxaban, a BCS II Drug Orally Administered as an Immediate-Release Tablet.Pharmaceutics · 2021Article
- In Vitro Dissolution and in Silico Modeling Shortcuts in Bioequivalence Testing.Pharmaceutics · 2020Review
- Biowaiver Applications in Support of a Polymorph During Late-Stage Clinical Development of Verubecestat-Current Challenges and Future Opportunities for Global Regulatory Alignment.The AAPS journal · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The Biopharmaceutics Classification System (BCS), based on aqueous solubility and intestinal permeability, has enjoyed wide use since 1995 as a mechanism for waiving in vivo bioavailability and bioequivalence studies. In 2000, the US-FDA was the first regulatory agency to publish guidance for industry describing how to meet criteria for requesting a waiver of in vivo bioavailability and bioequivalence studies for highly soluble, highly permeable (BCS Class I) drugs. Subsequently, the World Health Organization (WHO) and European Medicines Agency (EMA) published guidelines recommending how to obtain BCS biowaivers for BCS Class III drugs (high solubility, low permeability), in addition to Class I drugs. In 2015, the US-FDA became better harmonized with the EMA and WHO following publication of two guidances for industry outlining criteria for obtaining BCS biowaivers for both Class I and Class III drugs. A detailed review and comparison of the BCS Class I and Class III criteria currently recommended by the US-FDA, EMA, and WHO revealed good convergence of the three agencies with respect to BCS biowaiver criteria. The comparison also suggested that, by applying the most conservative of the three jurisdictional approaches, it should be possible for a sponsor to design the same set of BCS biowaiver studies in preparing a submission for worldwide filing to satisfy US, European, and emerging market regulators. It is hoped that the availability of BCS Class I and Class III biowaivers in multiple jurisdictions will encourage more sponsors to request waivers of in vivo bioavailability/bioequivalence testing using the BCS 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.