ReviewClinical pharmacokinetics2020
Converging Generic Drug Product Development: Bioequivalence Design and Reference Product Selection.
Review in Clinical pharmacokinetics, 2020. 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.
- Importance of Single Global Regulatory Standards for the Assessment of Generic and Biosimilar Medicines to Advance Patient Access.The AAPS journal · 2026Article
- Generic vs. brand-name pramipexole: effectiveness, safety, and cost comparison in a multicenter retrospective cohort study.Frontiers in aging neuroscience · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Different regulatory agencies provide criteria for selecting a reference product for bioequivalence (BE) studies. In most cases, the criteria vary from one regulatory agency to another, and, consequently, the generic companies often have to repeat the BE studies comparing the same test product with the reference product purchased from a particular country. In addition to being a cost-intensive exercise, this practice is also unethical. The purpose of this article is to discuss the current policy of major regulatory authorities on the selection of the reference product for pharmaceutical equivalence (PE) and BE studies, the cost implications of such regulatory practices, and to also explore the opportunity to harmonize the reference product selection criteria for reducing repetitive BE studies. The regulatory guidance documents of major jurisdictions are reviewed for similarities and differences in generic product definition, BE study design and conduct, and reference product selection criteria for PE and BE studies. A case study is presented to understand how harmonisation can be achieved and how the economic benefits of this harmonisation cannot be underestimated. Harmonisation in reference product selection criteria can pave the way for a common BE study(s) that would be acceptable to the majority of regulatory agencies, and would not only significantly reduce operating costs but would also minimize the exposure of healthy human beings to drugs.
Indexed as
Identifiers
32757104What 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.