ReviewMolecular pharmaceutics2025
iBCS: 4. Application of the Inhalation Biopharmaceutics Classification System to the Development of Orally Inhaled Drug Products.
Review in Molecular pharmaceutics, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Amorphous Solid Dispersions in Non-Oral Drug Delivery: A Critical Review Bridging Mechanistic Advantages and Gaps in Translational Evidence.Pharmaceutical research · 2026Review
- Advances in Formulation and Technological Strategies for Montelukast Pulmonary Delivery.ACS omega · 2026Review
- Regenerative therapeutics for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.Pharmacological reviews · 2026Review
- Advances in Nasal Biopharmaceutics to Support Product Development and Therapeutic Needs.Pharmaceutics · 2025Review
- An In Vitro-In Vivo Comparison of Two Levodopa Dry Powder Products for Inhalation: A Randomized Trial Comparing Inbrija and Levodopa Cyclops.Pharmaceutics · 2025Article
- Cardiovascular inhalation for targeted drug delivery in cardiac disease.Heart failure reviews · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
17 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This is the fourth paper in a series describing an inhalation biopharmaceutics classification system (iBCS), an initiative supported by the Product Quality Research Institute. The paper examines the application of the inhalation Biopharmaceutics Classification System (iBCS) through the drug discovery, development, and postapproval phases for orally inhaled drug products (OIDP) and for the development of generic OIDPs. We consider the implication of the iBCS class in terms of product performance and identify the practical gaps that must be filled to enable the classification system to be adopted into day-to-day practice. Consideration is given to the critical experimental data required and the methods for their generation with a focus on: (i) dose to the lungs, (ii) drug solubility in relevant media and methods to model the dissolution of respirable formulations, and (iii) pulmonary drug permeability. As described in three prior publications, the iBCS was developed to classify inhaled drugs based on physicochemical and biorelevant product attributes in a manner that will allow formulators and discovery chemists to identify and mitigate product development risks. It was not established to enable
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.