Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40704493›Full record

ReviewCPT: pharmacometrics & systems pharmacology2025

Impact of Mechanistic Modeling and Simulation Methodologies on Product-Specific Guidance Development for Non-Orally Administered Drug Products.

Steven G Chopski, Ross L Walenga, Ming-Liang Tan, Khondoker Alam, Andrew Babiskin, Lanyan Fang, Eleftheria Tsakalozou

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in CPT: pharmacometrics & systems pharmacology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

7 authors.

Steven G ChopskiDivision of Quantitative Methods and Modeling, Office of Research and Standards, Office of Generic Drugs, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, U.S. Food and Drug Administration, Silver Spring, Maryland, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-6442-9787
Ross L WalengaDivision of Quantitative Methods and Modeling, Office of Research and Standards, Office of Generic Drugs, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, U.S. Food and Drug Administration, Silver Spring, Maryland, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-3261-4245
Ming-Liang TanDivision of Quantitative Methods and Modeling, Office of Research and Standards, Office of Generic Drugs, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, U.S. Food and Drug Administration, Silver Spring, Maryland, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-1457-2168
Khondoker AlamDivision of Quantitative Methods and Modeling, Office of Research and Standards, Office of Generic Drugs, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, U.S. Food and Drug Administration, Silver Spring, Maryland, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-8757-2412
Andrew BabiskinDivision of Quantitative Methods and Modeling, Office of Research and Standards, Office of Generic Drugs, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, U.S. Food and Drug Administration, Silver Spring, Maryland, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-9968-0197
Lanyan FangDivision of Quantitative Methods and Modeling, Office of Research and Standards, Office of Generic Drugs, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, U.S. Food and Drug Administration, Silver Spring, Maryland, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-5378-2948
Eleftheria TsakalozouDivision of Quantitative Methods and Modeling, Office of Research and Standards, Office of Generic Drugs, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, U.S. Food and Drug Administration, Silver Spring, Maryland, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-1993-8528

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) publishes product-specific guidances (PSGs), with bioequivalence (BE) recommendations for prospective generics. Developing BE recommendations for non-orally administered drug products including long-acting injectables (LAI), orally inhaled drug products, and drugs applied locally to the skin, ophthalmic, and nasal routes may be challenging because conventional BE methods and considerations for orally administered drug products may not apply. Mechanistic modeling approaches such as physiologically based pharmacokinetic (PBPK) models or computational fluid dynamics (CFD) models are used for the development of BE methods and BE assessment standards in PSGs for non-orally administered drug products, as evidenced by cases provided here. This manuscript discusses in silico methodologies that support PSG development for non-orally administered drug products through the model-integrated evidence paradigm. Specifically for orally inhaled drug products, we highlight modeling and simulation (M&S) recommendations that have occurred in one new PSG that was published for formoterol fumarate; glycopyrrolate inhalation metered aerosol in February 2024 and referred to in 16 other PSGs with different active pharmaceutical ingredients and device types, such that M&S approaches may be optionally used to provide insight on regional drug delivery and support BE assessments. For drug products applied to the skin, we focus on three successful case studies where PBPK models were used to support revised PSG recommendations with reduced need for ex vivo and human studies. Ophthalmic products, LAI, and nasal products illustrated advancements in M&S methodologies that may be potentially used for the development of new or revised PSG recommendations.

Indexed as

Drugs, GenericModels, BiologicalAdministration, InhalationComputer SimulationHumansTherapeutic EquivalencyUnited StatesUnited States Food and Drug AdministrationDrugs, Genericcomputational fluid dynamicsgeneric drugmodel‐integrated evidencephysiologically based pharmacokinetic modelingproduct‐specific guidance

Identifiers

PMID40704493
PMCPMC12439276

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.