Utility of in vitro release testing (IVRT) to assess ‘sameness’ of 1% clotrimazole creams for use as a biowaiver
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The October 2022 draft United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) guidance presents an option of in vitro release test (IVRT) studies as a biowaiver for topical drug products submitted in abbreviated new drug applications (ANDAs). However, the product-specific guidance (PSG) for 1% clotrimazole (CLZ) topical cream does not provide an in vitro option for biowaiver and requires a clinical endpoint study to demonstrate bioequivalence (BE). Therefore, the main objective was to use IVRT to investigate pharmaceutical equivalence of several 1% CLZ topical creams from two countries — South Africa (SA) and Canada. This investigation aims at demonstrating the utility of IVRT to determine ‘sameness’ and/or differences between topical creams containing 1% CLZ and the potential of IVRT for supporting biowaivers, thereby obviating the necessity to conduct clinical endpoint studies in patients. A validated IVRT method was applied to conduct comparative IVRT runs on five generic products marketed in SA and one Canadian generic, which were compared against a relevant comparator product from their country of origin in accordance with the FDA’s acceptance criteria of 75–133.33%. All five SA-marketed generic creams showed pharmaceutical inequivalence to the SA comparator product indicating Q1/Q2/Q3 differences. Despite containing the same excipients as both comparator products, the Canadian generic showed substantially lower release rate compared to the comparator products which could be attributed to Q2/Q3 differences. The IVRT method displayed the requisite ability to assess the various 1% CLZ creams and confirmed the potential of the IVRT method to support a biowaiver for 1% CLZ topical creams. Graphical Abstract
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 | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".