ArticleScientific reports2025
A hybrid innovation method based on quality by design and agile scrum paradigms for the development of medicinal products.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
This study proposes an agile paradigm of the pharmaceutical Quality by Design (QbD) approach initiated and recommended by regulatory agencies to better understand and control their innovative products and processes throughout the development phase. The primary objective of this hybrid innovation method is to improve the structural organization of the QbD approach to simplify its use and expand its application to the early stages of preclinical development. This agile QbD paradigm relies on the incrementation and/or iteration of short studies called sprints indexed according to the Technological Readiness Level (TRL) scale. Each QbD sprint addresses a priority question of development and relies on a hypothetico-deductive scientific method to address it. They are composed of five steps: developing and updating the Target Product Profile, identifying critical input and output variables, designing experiments, conducting experiments, and analyzing the collected data to generalize conclusions through statistical inference. At the end of a sprint, four outcomes are possible: incrementing knowledge on the developed drug, i.e. moving to the next development sprint, iterating the current or previous sprint to reduce decision-making risk, pivoting to propose a new product profile, or stopping the development project. This decision-making process is based on the results of a statistical analysis estimating the probability of meeting the efficacy/safety/quality specifications of the medicinal product to be developed. To illustrate and to assess the practical relevance of this incremental and iterative approach, we applied it to the development of a new radiopharmaceutical for Positron Emission Tomography (PET) imaging. The Agile QbD approach was applied over six consecutive sprints to progress from an initial product concept (TRL 2) to a prototype manufactured using a production automation system (TRL 4). The method and results presented in this study provide a new perspective on applying QbD as an efficient tool for managing knowledge during innovation projects.
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.