A new method for investigating bioequivalence of inhaled formulations: A pilot study on salbutamol
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: An efficient, cost-effective and non-invasive test is required to overcome the challenges faced in the process of bioequivalence (BE) studies of various orally inhaled drug formulations. Two different types of pressurized meter dose inhalers (MDI-1 and MDI-2) were used in this study to test the practical applicability of a previously proposed hypothesis on the BE of inhaled salbutamol formulations. Methods: Salbutamol concentration profiles of the exhaled breath condensate (EBC) samples collected from volunteers receiving two inhaled formulations were compared employing BE criteria. In addition, the aerodynamic particle size distribution of the inhalers was determined by employing next generation impactor. Salbutamol concentrations in the samples were determined using liquid and gas chromatographic methods. Results: The MDI-1 inhaler induced slightly higher EBC concentrations of salbutamol when compared with MDI-2. The geometric MDI-2/MDI-1 mean ratios (confidence intervals) were 0.937 (0.721–1.22) for maximum concentration and 0.841 (0.592–1.20) for area under the EBC-time profile, indicating a lack of BE between the two formulations. In agreement with the in vivo data, the in vitro data indicated that the fine particle dose (FPD) of MDI-1 was slightly higher than that for the MDI-2 formulation. However, the FPD differences between the two formulations were not statistically significant. Conclusion: EBC data of the present work may be considered as a reliable source for assessment of the BE studies of orally inhaled drug formulations. However, more detailed investigations employing larger sample sizes and more formulations are required to provide more evidence for the proposed method of BE assay.
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 | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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".