-
Something wrong with this record ?
A Critical Overview of FDA and EMA Statistical Methods to Compare In Vitro Drug Dissolution Profiles of Pharmaceutical Products
J. Muselík, A. Komersová, K. Kubová, K. Matzick, B. Skalická
Language English Country Switzerland
Document type Journal Article
Grant support
CZ QK1810221
Ministry of Agriculture
MUNI/A/1574/2020
Masaryk University
SGS 2021 006
Ministry of Education, Youth and Sports of the Czech Republic
NLK
Directory of Open Access Journals
from 2010
Free Medical Journals
from 2010
PubMed Central
from 2009
Europe PubMed Central
from 2009
ProQuest Central
from 2009-01-01
Open Access Digital Library
from 2009-01-01
Open Access Digital Library
from 2010-01-01
ROAD: Directory of Open Access Scholarly Resources
from 2009
- Publication type
- Journal Article MeSH
A drug dissolution profile is one of the most critical dosage form characteristics with immediate and controlled drug release. Comparing the dissolution profiles of different pharmaceutical products plays a key role before starting the bioequivalence or stability studies. General recommendations for dissolution profile comparison are mentioned by the EMA and FDA guidelines. However, neither the EMA nor the FDA provides unambiguous instructions for comparing the dissolution curves, except for calculating the similarity factor f2. In agreement with the EMA and FDA strategy for comparing the dissolution profiles, this manuscript provides an overview of suitable statistical methods (CI derivation for f2 based on bootstrap, CI derivation for the difference between reference and test samples, Mahalanobis distance, model-dependent approach and maximum deviation method), their procedures and limitations. However, usage of statistical approaches for the above-described methods can be met with difficulties, especially when combined with the requirement of practice for robust and straightforward techniques for data evaluation. Therefore, the bootstrap to derive the CI for f2 or CI derivation for the difference between reference and test samples was selected as the method of choice.
References provided by Crossref.org
- 000
- 00000naa a2200000 a 4500
- 001
- bmc22001538
- 003
- CZ-PrNML
- 005
- 20220112153633.0
- 007
- ta
- 008
- 220107s2021 sz f 000 0|eng||
- 009
- AR
- 024 7_
- $a 10.3390/pharmaceutics13101703 $2 doi
- 035 __
- $a (PubMed)34683995
- 040 __
- $a ABA008 $b cze $d ABA008 $e AACR2
- 041 0_
- $a eng
- 044 __
- $a sz
- 100 1_
- $a Muselík, Jan $u Department of Pharmaceutical Technology, Faculty of Pharmacy, Masaryk University, Palackého tř. 1, 612 00 Brno, Czech Republic
- 245 12
- $a A Critical Overview of FDA and EMA Statistical Methods to Compare In Vitro Drug Dissolution Profiles of Pharmaceutical Products / $c J. Muselík, A. Komersová, K. Kubová, K. Matzick, B. Skalická
- 520 9_
- $a A drug dissolution profile is one of the most critical dosage form characteristics with immediate and controlled drug release. Comparing the dissolution profiles of different pharmaceutical products plays a key role before starting the bioequivalence or stability studies. General recommendations for dissolution profile comparison are mentioned by the EMA and FDA guidelines. However, neither the EMA nor the FDA provides unambiguous instructions for comparing the dissolution curves, except for calculating the similarity factor f2. In agreement with the EMA and FDA strategy for comparing the dissolution profiles, this manuscript provides an overview of suitable statistical methods (CI derivation for f2 based on bootstrap, CI derivation for the difference between reference and test samples, Mahalanobis distance, model-dependent approach and maximum deviation method), their procedures and limitations. However, usage of statistical approaches for the above-described methods can be met with difficulties, especially when combined with the requirement of practice for robust and straightforward techniques for data evaluation. Therefore, the bootstrap to derive the CI for f2 or CI derivation for the difference between reference and test samples was selected as the method of choice.
- 655 _2
- $a časopisecké články $7 D016428
- 700 1_
- $a Komersová, Alena $u Department of Physical Chemistry, Faculty of Chemical Technology, University of Pardubice, Studentská 573, 532 10 Pardubice, Czech Republic
- 700 1_
- $a Kubová, Kateřina $u Department of Pharmaceutical Technology, Faculty of Pharmacy, Masaryk University, Palackého tř. 1, 612 00 Brno, Czech Republic
- 700 1_
- $a Matzick, Kevin $u Department of Physical Chemistry, Faculty of Chemical Technology, University of Pardubice, Studentská 573, 532 10 Pardubice, Czech Republic
- 700 1_
- $a Skalická, Barbora $u Department of Physical Chemistry, Faculty of Chemical Technology, University of Pardubice, Studentská 573, 532 10 Pardubice, Czech Republic
- 773 0_
- $w MED00186380 $t Pharmaceutics $x 1999-4923 $g Roč. 13, č. 10 (2021)
- 856 41
- $u https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34683995 $y Pubmed
- 910 __
- $a ABA008 $b sig $c sign $y - $z 0
- 990 __
- $a 20220107 $b ABA008
- 991 __
- $a 20220112153629 $b ABA008
- 999 __
- $a ind $b bmc $g 1745520 $s 1152685
- BAS __
- $a 3
- BAS __
- $a PreBMC
- BMC __
- $a 2021 $b 13 $c 10 $e 20211015 $i 1999-4923 $m Pharmaceutics $n Pharmaceutics $x MED00186380
- GRA __
- $a CZ QK1810221 $p Ministry of Agriculture
- GRA __
- $a MUNI/A/1574/2020 $p Masaryk University
- GRA __
- $a SGS 2021 006 $p Ministry of Education, Youth and Sports of the Czech Republic
- LZP __
- $a Pubmed-20220107