ArticleBritish journal of clinical pharmacology2019
Sex-by-formulation interaction in bioequivalence studies: the importance of formulations and experimental conditions.
Article in British journal of clinical pharmacology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Response to 'Sex-by-formulation interaction in bioequivalence studies: the importance of formulations and experimental conditions' by Ibarra et al.British journal of clinical pharmacology · 2019Article
- Sex-by-formulation interaction in bioequivalence studies: the importance of formulations and experimental conditions.British journal of clinical pharmacology · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
- Comment on
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In a recently published investigation, the authors argued against the likelihood of sex-based subject-by-formulation interactions in bioequivalence studies, i.e. male and female subjects exhibiting different discriminatory potential to detect bioavailability differences between formulations. The researchers performed a strong methodological study showing the increased probability of false-positive findings in exploratory subgroup analysis, a well-known and documented statistical issue. Indeed, the main limitation of assessing a sex-by-formulation interaction in average bioequivalence studies lies in the fact that these clinical trials are not designed for this purpose. In this commentary, we further discuss on why the impact of sex differences in gastrointestinal physiology over in vivo drug dissolution and absorption rate cannot remain hidden behind statistical limitations, particularly when average bioequivalence conclusions could be affected. Regulatory agencies should encourage and support these important issues related to biopharmaceutical quality of drug products in both sexes. In addition, a sex-based analysis of bioequivalence results will enhance the representativeness of conclusions and provide important information regarding formulation performance, thereby promoting the efficacy and safety of generic drugs and reducing consumer risk. The extrapolation of study conclusions from one sex to another is far away from being scientifically proven.
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.