Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28290122›Full record

ReviewClinical pharmacokinetics2017

Scientific Rationale for Determining the Bioequivalence of Inhaled Drugs.

Omar S Usmani, Mathieu Molimard, Vaibhav Gaur, Jaideep Gogtay, Gur Jai Pal Singh, Geena Malhotra, Eric Derom

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Clinical pharmacokinetics, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
0.2field-weighted citation impact, top 44% of its field
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

1 citing paper in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. 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

7 authors at 4 institutions in 4 countries.

Omar S UsmaniAirways Disease Section, National Heart and Lung Institute, Imperial College London and Royal Brompton Hospital, Dovehouse Street, London, SW3 6LY, UK. o.usmani@imperial.ac.uk.
Mathieu MolimardDepartment of Medical Pharmacology, CHU and University of Bordeaux, Bordeaux, France.
Vaibhav GaurGlobal Medical Affairs, Cipla Ltd, Mumbai, India.
Jaideep GogtayGlobal Medical Affairs, Cipla Ltd, Mumbai, India.
Gur Jai Pal SinghResearch and Development, Cipla Ltd, Mumbai, India.
Geena MalhotraResearch and Development, Cipla Ltd, Mumbai, India.
Eric DeromDepartment of Internal Medicine, Ghent University Hospital, Ghent, Belgium.
Cipla (India) · INGhent University Hospital · BEImperial College London · GBUniversité de Bordeaux · FR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In recent years, pathways for the development and approval of bioequivalent inhaled products have been established for regulated markets, including the European Union (EU), and a number of orally inhaled products (OIPs) have been approved in the EU solely on the basis of in vitro and pharmacokinetic data. This review describes how these development pathways are structured and their implications for the treatment of airway diseases such as asthma. The EU guidance follows a stepwise approach that includes in vitro criteria as the first step. If all in vitro criteria are not met, the second step is based on pharmacokinetic evaluations, which include assessments of lung and systemic bioavailability. If all pharmacokinetic criteria are not met, the third step is based on clinical endpoint studies. In this review, the scientific rationale of the European Medicines Agency guidance for the development of bioequivalent OIPs is reviewed with the focus on the development of bioequivalent OIPs in the EU. Indeed, we discuss the advantages and disadvantages of the weight-of-evidence and stepwise approaches. The evidence indicates that the EU guidance is robust and, unlike clinical endpoint studies, the pharmacokinetic studies are far more sensitive to measure the minor differences, i.e. deposition and absorption rates, in drug delivery from the test and reference products and, thus, should be best suited for assessing bioequivalence. The acceptance range of the 90% confidence intervals for pharmacokinetic bioequivalence (i.e. 80-125% for both the area under the plasma concentration-time curve and maximum plasma concentration) represent appropriately conservative margins for ensuring equivalent safety and efficacy of the test and reference products.

Indexed as

Administration, InhalationAdministration, OralAnimalsAsthmaBiological AvailabilityBronchodilator AgentsEuropean UnionHumansLungTherapeutic EquivalencyBronchodilator AgentsEuropean UnionFluticasone PropionateFormoterolSalmeterolSystemic Exposure

Identifiers

PMID28290122
OpenAlexW2596151147

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.