Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34371741›Full record

ReviewPharmaceutics2021

Innovating on Inhaled Bioequivalence: A Critical Analysis of the Current Limitations, Potential Solutions and Stakeholders of the Process.

Jonattan Gallegos-Catalán, Zachary Warnken, Tania F Bahamondez-Canas, Daniel Moraga-Espinoza

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Pharmaceutics, 2021. 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
0.3field-weighted citation impact, top 41% 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, 3 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. 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

4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Jonattan Gallegos-CatalánEscuela de Química y Farmacia, Facultad de Farmacia, Universidad de Valparaíso, Valparaíso 2340000, Chile.
Zachary WarnkenVia Therapeutics, Austin, TX 78712, USA.
Tania F Bahamondez-CanasEscuela de Química y Farmacia, Facultad de Farmacia, Universidad de Valparaíso, Valparaíso 2340000, Chile.ORCID 0000-0002-3261-466X
Daniel Moraga-EspinozaEscuela de Química y Farmacia, Facultad de Farmacia, Universidad de Valparaíso, Valparaíso 2340000, Chile.ORCID 0000-0001-5416-4164
University of Valparaíso · CL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Orally inhaled drug products (OIDPs) are an important group of medicines traditionally used to treat pulmonary diseases. Over the past decade, this trend has broadened, increasing their use in other conditions such as diabetes, expanding the interest in this administration route. Thus, the bioequivalence of OIDPs is more important than ever, aiming to increase access to affordable, safe and effective medicines, which translates into better public health policies. However, regulatory agencies leading the bioequivalence process are still deciding the best approach for ensuring a proposed inhalable product is bioequivalent. This lack of agreement translates into less cost-effective strategies to determine bioequivalence, discouraging innovation in this field. The Next-Generation Impactor (NGI) is an example of the slow pace at which the inhalation field evolves. The NGI was officially implemented in 2003, being the last equipment innovation for OIDP characterization. Even though it was a breakthrough in the field, it did not solve other deficiencies of the BE process such as dissolution rate analysis on physiologically relevant conditions, being the last attempt of transferring technology into the field. This review aims to reveal the steps required for innovation in the regulations defining the bioequivalence of OIDPs, elucidating the pitfalls of implementing new technologies in the current standards. To do so, we collected the opinion of experts from the literature to explain these trends, showing, for the first time, the stakeholders of the OIDP market. This review analyzes the stakeholders involved in the development, improvement and implementation of methodologies that can help assess bioequivalence between OIDPs. Additionally, it presents a list of methods potentially useful to overcome some of the current limitations of the bioequivalence standard methodologies. Finally, we review one of the most revolutionary approaches, the inhaled Biopharmaceutical Classification System (IBCs), which can help establish priorities and order in both the innovation process and in regulations for OIDPs.

Indexed as

BCSbioequivalenceinhalationregulatory

Identifiers

PMID34371741
PMCPMC8309038
OpenAlexW3177552909

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.