MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4385840831 · doi:10.1016/j.ejps.2023.106566

The Global Bioequivalence Harmonisation Initiative (GBHI): Report of the fifth international EUFEPS/AAPS conference

2023· review· en· W4385840831 on OpenAlexaff
Minesh P. Mehta, Barbara Schug, H.H. Blume, Gerald Beuerle, Wenlei Jiang, Janet Koenig, Paulo Paixão, Nilufer Tampal, Y-C Tsang, J Walstab, Ralph‐Steven Wedemeyer, Jan Welink

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Journal of Pharmaceutical Sciences · 2023
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicStatistical Methods in Clinical Trials
Canadian institutionsApotex (Canada)
FundersU.S. Food and Drug Administration
KeywordsBioequivalenceContext (archaeology)Political scienceOperations researchPharmacologyManagement scienceMedicineComputer scienceMathematicsEngineeringPharmacokinetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The series of conferences of the Global Bioequivalence Harmonisation Initiative (GBHI) was started in 2015 by the European Federation for Pharmaceutical Sciences (EUFEPS). All GBHI meetings so far were co-organised together with the American Association of Pharmaceutical Scientists (AAPS). Beginning with the 3rd workshop US-FDA joined as co-sponsor - to support global harmonisation of regulatory recommendations for bioequivalence (BE) assessment. At the 5th GBHI conference, the following BE topics were intensively discussed, and the following main conclusions were drawn: (1) Statistical considerations for BE assessment in specific situations covering scaling approaches for highly variable drug (HVD) products, two-stage adaptive design and opportunities of modelling and simulation to support BE: even though special BE study concepts like adaptive designs are not often used in practise so far, a majority of the workshop participants were in favour of a more frequent application of such approaches. The regulatory conditions relevant in this context need further concretisation and harmonisation between the regions. Moreover, modelling and simulation were considered as a promising and evolving approach, also for BE development programmes. (2) Fed versus fasting conditions in BE trials: Findings that BE between generic products could be confirmed only after fasted administration but failed under fed conditions seem more an exception than the rule. Obviously, BCS class IV compounds are most problematic in this context. Differences in critical excipients such as surfactants or pH-modifiers may be relevant reasons for different sensitivity for interactions in fasted versus fed conditions. Consequently, such deviations in composition of generic preparations should be avoided. Moreover, confirmation of BE may be generally difficult comparing different dosage forms, such like capsules versus tablets, especially in fed state. (3) BE assessment of locally acting drug products applied topically to the skin: Appropriateness and potential benefit of in-vitro tests as alternatives to clinical efficacy studies have been comprehensively discussed. In addition to the already well-established in-vitro release and permeation tests, other techniques were suggested, e.g., Raman spectroscopy or dermal open flow microperfusion. Validation of those methods is challenging and, despite significant progress already achieved during previous years, more research is needed before they may be fully accepted for regulatory purposes. (4) BE evaluation of narrow therapeutic index (NTI) drugs: The discrepancies amongst regulatory agencies in necessity of tighter BE acceptance ranges, the recommendations for inclusion of peak and total drug exposure into BE assessment with more restrictive criteria and the importance of comparison of the product-related within-subject variability for NTI drugs were debated. Arguments in favour and against the different approaches were presented and discussed but need further consideration before harmonisation can be achieved. The highly interactive meeting and extensive exchange between regulators and scientists from industry and academia resulted in useful progress in open BE issues and supported the goal of science-driven harmonisation.

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

Direct model labels (unvalidated)

Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.

Model armCategoriesStudy designConfidence
gemmano category
Domain: not available · Genre: Review
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Not applicablelow
gptno category
Domain: not available · Genre: Commentary
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Not applicablehigh
models agreeAgreement compares identical category sets and study designs across arms.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.029
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.123
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Science and technology studies
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.906
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0290.123
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.003
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0030.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.912
GPT teacher head0.684
Teacher spread0.228 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Labeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview · Commentary

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".

Quick stats

Citations8
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEuropean Journal of Pharmaceutical SciencesSame topicStatistical Methods in Clinical TrialsFrench-language works237,207