ArticlePharmaceutics2021
Pilot Equivalence Study Comparing Different Batches of Topical 0.025% Capsaicin Emulsion: Product Microstructure, Release, and Permeation Evaluation.
Article in Pharmaceutics, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Impact of Time on Parameters for Assessing the Microstructure Equivalence of Topical Products: Diclofenac 1% Emulsion as a Case Study.Pharmaceutics · 2024Article
- Sustainable Alternatives to Petroleum-Derived Excipients in Pharmaceutical Oil-in-Water Creams.AAPS PharmSciTech · 2024Article
- Rheology of Complex Topical Formulations: An Analytical Quality by Design Approach to Method Optimization and Validation.Pharmaceutics · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The European Medical Agency (EMA) has issued a draft guideline on the quality and equivalence of topical products. The equivalence for complex semisolid formulations involves several steps: the same quantitative content, the same microstructure, the same release, and permeation profile. In this paper, several batches of a low strength topical product, which we used as a reference/comparator product, were evaluated according to the recommendations of the EMA draft guideline. The batches were 0.025% capsaicin emulsions from the same manufacturer that were evaluated in terms of droplet size, X-ray diffraction patterns, rheology, release, and permeation profile. The generated data revealed a large batch-to-batch variability, and if the EMA guideline was applied, these batches would not be considered equivalent, although they were produced by the same manufacturer. The result of this work illustrates the difficulties in obtaining equivalence according to the current draft guidelines. It also highlights that the equivalence guidelines should consider the variability of the comparator product, and in our opinion, the guidelines should allow for claiming equivalence by comparing the limits in the variability of the data generated for the comparator product with the limits in the variability of the data generated for the intended equivalence product.
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.