Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32757104›Full record

ReviewClinical pharmacokinetics2020

Converging Generic Drug Product Development: Bioequivalence Design and Reference Product Selection.

Naseem Ahmad Charoo

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
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

1 author.

Naseem Ahmad CharooNeopharma LLC, Mussafah, PO Box 72900, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates. naseem102@yahoo.com.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Drug DevelopmentDrugs, GenericHumansTherapeutic EquivalencyDrugs, Generic

Identifiers

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.