<i>In Vitro–In Vivo</i> Correlations Observed With Indacaterol-Based Formulations Delivered with the Breezhaler <sup>®</sup>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Establishing robust in vitro-in vivo correlations (IVIVC) between aerosol performance, pharmacokinetics, and clinical efficacy is critical in developing bioequivalent drug-device combination products. Recent studies have demonstrated that realistic throat models tested under realistic test conditions may provide good IVIVC with respect to total lung deposition. METHODS: The Alberta idealized throat (AIT) model was utilized with mean peak inspiratory flow rates determined from patient breathing studies. Various formulations of indacaterol (e.g., lactose blends, fixed dose combinations, engineered PulmoSphere™ particles) were tested in the AIT model and in clinical pharmacokinetic studies. RESULTS: Good IVIVC were observed with respect to total lung deposition, systemic delivery, and the contribution of oral absorption to systemic delivery, with percentage differences from the mean in vivo measurements <15%, with most comparisons <5%. CONCLUSIONS: Anatomical throat models represent an exciting tool to aid in formulation development of pharmaceutical aerosols.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".