ReviewIn vitro models2022
In vitro tools for orally inhaled drug products-state of the art for their application in pharmaceutical research and industry and regulatory challenges.
Review in In vitro models, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Application of the market-ready NAVETTA electrodeposition chamber for controlledComputational and structural biotechnology journal · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The drug development process is a lengthy and expensive challenge for all involved players. Experience with the COVID-19 pandemic underlines the need for a rapid and effective approval for treatment options. As essential prerequisites for successful drug approval, a combination of high-quality studies and reliable research must be included. To this day, mainly in vivo data are requested and collected for assessing safety and efficacy and are therefore decisive for the pre-clinical evaluation of the respective drug. This review aims to summarize the current state of the art for safety and efficacy studies in pharmaceutical research and industry to address the relevant regulatory challenges and to provide an outlook on implementing more in vitro methods as alternative to animal testing. While the public demand for alternative methods is becoming louder, first examples have meanwhile found acceptance in relevant guidelines, e.g. the OECD guidelines for skin sensitizer. Besides ethically driven developments, also the rather low throughput and relatively high costs of animal experiments are forcing the industry towards the implementation of alternative methods. In this context, the development of orally inhaled drug products is particularly challenging due to the complexity of the lung as biological barrier and route of administration. The replacement of animal experiments with focus on the lungs requires special designed tools to achieve predictive data. New in vitro test systems of increasing complexity are presented in this review. Limits and advantages are discussed to provide some perspective for a future in vitro testing strategy for orally inhaled drug products. Graphical abstract:
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.