Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38117372›Full record

ArticleAAPS PharmSciTech2023

Dissolution Profiles Comparison Using Conventional and Bias Corrected and Accelerated f2 Bootstrap Approaches with Different Software's: Impact of Variability, Sample Size and Number of Bootstraps.

Rajkumar Boddu, Sivacharan Kollipara, Adithya Karthik Bhattiprolu, Karthik Parsa, Sanketh Kumar Chakilam, Krishna Reddy Daka, Ashima Bhatia, Tausif Ahmed

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in AAPS PharmSciTech, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing 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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. 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

8 authors.

Rajkumar BodduBiopharmaceutics Group, Global Clinical Management, Dr. Reddy's Laboratories Ltd., Integrated Product Development Organization (IPDO), Bachupally, Medchal Malkajgiri District, Hyderabad, 500 090, Telangana, India.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8666-3643
Sivacharan KolliparaBiopharmaceutics Group, Global Clinical Management, Dr. Reddy's Laboratories Ltd., Integrated Product Development Organization (IPDO), Bachupally, Medchal Malkajgiri District, Hyderabad, 500 090, Telangana, India.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7332-9021
Adithya Karthik BhattiproluBiopharmaceutics Group, Global Clinical Management, Dr. Reddy's Laboratories Ltd., Integrated Product Development Organization (IPDO), Bachupally, Medchal Malkajgiri District, Hyderabad, 500 090, Telangana, India.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4618-6835
Karthik ParsaDigital and Process Excellence, Dr. Reddy's Laboratories Ltd., Integrated Product Development Organization (IPDO), Bachupally, Medchal Malkajgiri District, Hyderabad, 500 090, Telangana, India.
Sanketh Kumar ChakilamBiostatistics & Data Management, Global Clinical Management, Dr. Reddy's Laboratories Ltd., Integrated Product Development Organization (IPDO), Bachupally, Medchal Malkajgiri District, Hyderabad, 500 090, Telangana, India.
Krishna Reddy DakaBiostatistics & Data Management, Global Clinical Management, Dr. Reddy's Laboratories Ltd., Integrated Product Development Organization (IPDO), Bachupally, Medchal Malkajgiri District, Hyderabad, 500 090, Telangana, India.
Ashima BhatiaBiopharmaceutics Group, Global Clinical Management, Dr. Reddy's Laboratories Ltd., Integrated Product Development Organization (IPDO), Bachupally, Medchal Malkajgiri District, Hyderabad, 500 090, Telangana, India.
Tausif AhmedBiopharmaceutics Group, Global Clinical Management, Dr. Reddy's Laboratories Ltd., Integrated Product Development Organization (IPDO), Bachupally, Medchal Malkajgiri District, Hyderabad, 500 090, Telangana, India. tausifahmed@drreddys.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6866-6691

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Dissolution profiles comparison is an important element in order to support biowaivers, scale-up and post approval changes and site transfers. Highly variable dissolution can possess significant challenges for comparison and f2 bootstrap approach can be utilized in such cases. However, availability of different types of f2 and confidence intervals (CI) methods indicates necessity to understand each type of calculation thoroughly. Among all approaches, bias corrected and accelerated (BCa) can be an attractive choice as it corrects the bias and skewness of the distribution. In this manuscript, we have performed comparison of highly variable dissolution data using various software's by adopting percentile and BCa CI approaches. Diverse data with different variability's, number of samples and bootstraps were evaluated with JMP, DDSolver, R-software, SAS and PhEq. While all software's yielded similar observed f2 values, differences in lower percentile CI was observed. BCa with R-software and JMP provided superior lower percentile as compared to other computations. Expected f2 recommended by EMA has resulted as stringent criteria as compared to estimated f2. No impact of number of bootstraps on similarity analysis was observed whereas number of samples increased chance of acceptance. Variability has impacted similarity outcome with estimated f2 but chance of acceptance enhanced with BCa approach. Further, freely available R-software can be of attractive choice due to computation of various types of f2, percentile and BCa intervals. Overall, this work can enable regulatory submissions to enhance probability of similarity through appropriate selection of number of samples, technique based on variability of dissolution data.

Indexed as

SoftwareProbabilitySample Sizebias corrected and acceleratedbootstrapdissolutionexpected f2regulatorysimilarity

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.