The revised EMA guideline for the investigation of bioequivalence for immediate release oral formulations with systemic action
Bibliographic record
Abstract
On August 1, 2010, a revised guidance regarding bioequivalence (BE) assessment for the approval of innovator (bridging studies, variations, line extensions) and generic medicinal products in the EU came into effect. This revised guideline specifies the requirements for BE assessment for immediate release oral dosage forms with systemic action. Compared to the previous BE guideline of the EMA, clearer guidance is now given on several topics. For example, for highly variable drugs/drug products, i.e. a within-subject variability for AUC and/or Cmax of 30% or more, the EMA now recommends to use a crossover, replicate design which allows widening of the acceptance limits for Cmax (not for AUC), if clinically justified, by using the scaled average BE approach. This approach allows scaling of the usual acceptance limits of 80.00-125.00% to a maximum of 69.84-143.19%, based on the within-subject variability of the reference product. The use of metabolite concentrations to assess BE is now only accepted in the exceptional case that no bioanalytical method exists, or can be developed using state-of-the-art methodology, which is sensitive enough to reliably determine the AUC of the parent compound. According to this revised EMA guidelance biowaivers based on in vitro dissolution tests are not only possible for BCS class I substances, but also for class III substances if a number of additional conditions, e.g. concerning the excipients used in the test product compared to the reference product, are met. Moreover, specific questions related to BE assessment are more elaborately addressed in a Questions & Answers document (EMA/618604/2008 Rev. 3, 26 January 2011).
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 | 0.044 | 0.064 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.012 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.017 |
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".