A Survey of the Regulatory Requirements for BCS-Based Biowaivers for Solid Oral Dosage Forms by Participating Regulators and Organisations of the International Generic Drug Regulators Programme
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: The Biopharmaceutics Classification System (BCS) based biowaiver is a scientific model which enables the substitution of in vivo bioequivalence studies with in vitro data as evidence of therapeutic equivalence subject to certain conditions. Despite being based on the same principles, BCS-based biowaivers are interpreted and regulated differently among international regulatory agencies. In this survey, the Bioequivalence Working Group (BEWG) of the International Generic Drug Regulators Programme (IGDRP) compared the criteria for BCS-based biowaivers applied by the participating regulators and organisations. METHODS: Differences and similarities regarding solubility, permeability, dissolution, excipients and fixed-dose combination products, were identified and compared in a detailed survey of each participant's criteria for BCS-based biowaivers. These criteria were determined based upon the participants' respective regulatory guidance documents, policies and practices. RESULTS: This review has, with the exception of two participants who do not accept BCS-based biowaivers, revealed that most IGDRP participants interpret the BCS principles and conditions similarly but notable differences exist in the application of these principles. Conclusion: Although many similarities exist, this review identifies several opportunities for greater convergence of regulatory requirements amongst the surveyed jurisdictions. This article is open to POST-PUBLICATION REVIEW. Registered readers (see "For Readers") may comment by clicking on ABSTRACT on the issue's contents page.
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 | 0.082 | 0.130 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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".