AIM: The aim of this study was to evaluate the acceptability of 124 bioequivalence (BE) studies with 80 active substances categorized according to the Biopharmaceutics Classification System (BCS) in order to establish if there were different probabilities of proving BE between the different BCS classes. METHODS: We evaluated the differences between pharmaceutical products with active substances from different BCS classes in terms of acceptability, number of subjects in the study (n), the point estimates, and intra- and inter-subject coefficients of variation data from BE studies with generic products. RESULTS:Out of 124 BE studies 89 (71.77%) were performed with pharmaceutical products containing active substances classified by the BCS. In all BCS classes there were non-bioequivalent pharmaceutical products: 4 out of 26 (15.38%) in class 1, 14 out of 28 (50%) in class 2, 3 out of 22 (13.63%) in class 3 and 1 out of 13 (7.69%) in class 4. When we removed those pharmaceutical products in which intra-subject variability was higher than predicted (2 in class 1 active substances, 9 in class 2 and 2 in class 3) there were still non-BE pharmaceutical products in classes 1, 2 and 3. CONCLUSIONS: Comparisons between pharmaceutical products with active substances from the four BCS classes have not allowed us to define differential characteristics of each class in terms of n, inter and intra-subject variability for C(max) or AUC. Despite the usually employed test dissolution methodology proposed as quality control, pharmaceutical products with active substances from the four classes of BCS showed non-BE studies.
RCT Entities:
AIM: The aim of this study was to evaluate the acceptability of 124 bioequivalence (BE) studies with 80 active substances categorized according to the Biopharmaceutics Classification System (BCS) in order to establish if there were different probabilities of proving BE between the different BCS classes. METHODS: We evaluated the differences between pharmaceutical products with active substances from different BCS classes in terms of acceptability, number of subjects in the study (n), the point estimates, and intra- and inter-subject coefficients of variation data from BE studies with generic products. RESULTS: Out of 124 BE studies 89 (71.77%) were performed with pharmaceutical products containing active substances classified by the BCS. In all BCS classes there were non-bioequivalent pharmaceutical products: 4 out of 26 (15.38%) in class 1, 14 out of 28 (50%) in class 2, 3 out of 22 (13.63%) in class 3 and 1 out of 13 (7.69%) in class 4. When we removed those pharmaceutical products in which intra-subject variability was higher than predicted (2 in class 1 active substances, 9 in class 2 and 2 in class 3) there were still non-BE pharmaceutical products in classes 1, 2 and 3. CONCLUSIONS: Comparisons between pharmaceutical products with active substances from the four BCS classes have not allowed us to define differential characteristics of each class in terms of n, inter and intra-subject variability for C(max) or AUC. Despite the usually employed test dissolution methodology proposed as quality control, pharmaceutical products with active substances from the four classes of BCS showed non-BE studies.
Authors: Lawrence X Yu; Gordon L Amidon; James E Polli; Hong Zhao; Mehul U Mehta; Dale P Conner; Vinod P Shah; Lawrence J Lesko; Mei-Ling Chen; Vincent H L Lee; Ajaz S Hussain Journal: Pharm Res Date: 2002-07 Impact factor: 4.200
Authors: James E Polli; Lawrence X Yu; Jack A Cook; Gordon L Amidon; Ronald T Borchardt; Beth A Burnside; Philip S Burton; Mei-Ling Chen; Dale P Conner; Patrick J Faustino; Amale A Hawi; Ajaz S Hussain; Hemant N Joshi; Gloria Kwei; Vincent H L Lee; Lawrence J Lesko; Robert A Lipper; Alice E Loper; Shriniwas G Nerurkar; Joseph W Polli; Dilip R Sanvordeker; Rajneesh Taneja; Ramana S Uppoor; Chandra S Vattikonda; Ian Wilding; Guohua Zhang Journal: J Pharm Sci Date: 2004-06 Impact factor: 3.534
Authors: E Ramirez; P Guerra; O Laosa; B Duque; B Tabares; S H Lei; A J Carcas; J Frias Journal: Eur J Clin Pharmacol Date: 2008-05-21 Impact factor: 2.953
Authors: M Marzo; R Ciccarelli; P Di Iorio; P Giuliani; F Caciagli; A Marzo Journal: Int J Immunopathol Pharmacol Date: 2015-12-18 Impact factor: 3.219
Authors: Nieves Velez de Mendizabal; Kimberley Jackson; Brian Eastwood; Steven Swanson; David M Bender; Stephen Lowe; Robert R Bies Journal: J Pharmacokinet Pharmacodyn Date: 2015-09-22 Impact factor: 2.745
Authors: Varsha Bhatt-Mehta; Robert B MacArthur; Raimar Löbenberg; Jeffrey J Cies; Ibolja Cernak; Richard H Parrish Ii Journal: Pharmacy (Basel) Date: 2015-11-11