4.7 Review

In Vitro Dissolution and in Silico Modeling Shortcuts in Bioequivalence Testing

Journal

PHARMACEUTICS
Volume 12, Issue 1, Pages -

Publisher

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/pharmaceutics12010045

Keywords

bioequivalence; in silico pharmacokinetic simulations; similarity factor; dissolution; publication bias; biowaiver; biopharmaceutics classification system

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Purpose: To review in vitro testing and simulation platforms that are in current use to predict in vivo performances of generic products as well as other situations to provide evidence for biowaiver and support drug formulations development. Methods: Pubmed and Google Scholar databases were used to review published literature over the past 10 years. The terms used were simulation AND bioequivalence and modeling AND bioequivalence in the title field of databases, followed by screening, and then reviewing. Results: A total of 22 research papers were reviewed. Computer simulation using software such as GastroPlus (TM), PK-Sim(R) and SimCyp(R) find applications in drug modeling. Considering the wide use of optimization for in silico predictions to fit observed data, a careful review of publications is required to validate the reliability of these platforms. For immediate release (IR) drug products belonging to the Biopharmaceutics Classification System (BCS) classes I and III, difference factor (integral(1)) and similarity factor (integral(2)) are calculated from the in vitro dissolution data of drug formulations to support biowaiver; however, this method can be more discriminatory and may not be useful for all dissolution profiles. Conclusions: Computer simulation platforms need to improve their mechanistic physiologically based pharmacokinetic (PBPK) modeling, and if prospectively validated within a small percentage of error from the observed clinical data, they can be valuable tools in bioequivalence (BE) testing and formulation development.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available