Cargando…
Innovating on Inhaled Bioequivalence: A Critical Analysis of the Current Limitations, Potential Solutions and Stakeholders of the Process
Orally inhaled drug products (OIDPs) are an important group of medicines traditionally used to treat pulmonary diseases. Over the past decade, this trend has broadened, increasing their use in other conditions such as diabetes, expanding the interest in this administration route. Thus, the bioequiva...
Autores principales: | , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
MDPI
2021
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8309038/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34371741 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/pharmaceutics13071051 |
_version_ | 1783728426938531840 |
---|---|
author | Gallegos-Catalán, Jonattan Warnken, Zachary Bahamondez-Canas, Tania F. Moraga-Espinoza, Daniel |
author_facet | Gallegos-Catalán, Jonattan Warnken, Zachary Bahamondez-Canas, Tania F. Moraga-Espinoza, Daniel |
author_sort | Gallegos-Catalán, Jonattan |
collection | PubMed |
description | Orally inhaled drug products (OIDPs) are an important group of medicines traditionally used to treat pulmonary diseases. Over the past decade, this trend has broadened, increasing their use in other conditions such as diabetes, expanding the interest in this administration route. Thus, the bioequivalence of OIDPs is more important than ever, aiming to increase access to affordable, safe and effective medicines, which translates into better public health policies. However, regulatory agencies leading the bioequivalence process are still deciding the best approach for ensuring a proposed inhalable product is bioequivalent. This lack of agreement translates into less cost-effective strategies to determine bioequivalence, discouraging innovation in this field. The Next-Generation Impactor (NGI) is an example of the slow pace at which the inhalation field evolves. The NGI was officially implemented in 2003, being the last equipment innovation for OIDP characterization. Even though it was a breakthrough in the field, it did not solve other deficiencies of the BE process such as dissolution rate analysis on physiologically relevant conditions, being the last attempt of transferring technology into the field. This review aims to reveal the steps required for innovation in the regulations defining the bioequivalence of OIDPs, elucidating the pitfalls of implementing new technologies in the current standards. To do so, we collected the opinion of experts from the literature to explain these trends, showing, for the first time, the stakeholders of the OIDP market. This review analyzes the stakeholders involved in the development, improvement and implementation of methodologies that can help assess bioequivalence between OIDPs. Additionally, it presents a list of methods potentially useful to overcome some of the current limitations of the bioequivalence standard methodologies. Finally, we review one of the most revolutionary approaches, the inhaled Biopharmaceutical Classification System (IBCs), which can help establish priorities and order in both the innovation process and in regulations for OIDPs. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-8309038 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2021 |
publisher | MDPI |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-83090382021-07-25 Innovating on Inhaled Bioequivalence: A Critical Analysis of the Current Limitations, Potential Solutions and Stakeholders of the Process Gallegos-Catalán, Jonattan Warnken, Zachary Bahamondez-Canas, Tania F. Moraga-Espinoza, Daniel Pharmaceutics Review Orally inhaled drug products (OIDPs) are an important group of medicines traditionally used to treat pulmonary diseases. Over the past decade, this trend has broadened, increasing their use in other conditions such as diabetes, expanding the interest in this administration route. Thus, the bioequivalence of OIDPs is more important than ever, aiming to increase access to affordable, safe and effective medicines, which translates into better public health policies. However, regulatory agencies leading the bioequivalence process are still deciding the best approach for ensuring a proposed inhalable product is bioequivalent. This lack of agreement translates into less cost-effective strategies to determine bioequivalence, discouraging innovation in this field. The Next-Generation Impactor (NGI) is an example of the slow pace at which the inhalation field evolves. The NGI was officially implemented in 2003, being the last equipment innovation for OIDP characterization. Even though it was a breakthrough in the field, it did not solve other deficiencies of the BE process such as dissolution rate analysis on physiologically relevant conditions, being the last attempt of transferring technology into the field. This review aims to reveal the steps required for innovation in the regulations defining the bioequivalence of OIDPs, elucidating the pitfalls of implementing new technologies in the current standards. To do so, we collected the opinion of experts from the literature to explain these trends, showing, for the first time, the stakeholders of the OIDP market. This review analyzes the stakeholders involved in the development, improvement and implementation of methodologies that can help assess bioequivalence between OIDPs. Additionally, it presents a list of methods potentially useful to overcome some of the current limitations of the bioequivalence standard methodologies. Finally, we review one of the most revolutionary approaches, the inhaled Biopharmaceutical Classification System (IBCs), which can help establish priorities and order in both the innovation process and in regulations for OIDPs. MDPI 2021-07-09 /pmc/articles/PMC8309038/ /pubmed/34371741 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/pharmaceutics13071051 Text en © 2021 by the authors. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). |
spellingShingle | Review Gallegos-Catalán, Jonattan Warnken, Zachary Bahamondez-Canas, Tania F. Moraga-Espinoza, Daniel Innovating on Inhaled Bioequivalence: A Critical Analysis of the Current Limitations, Potential Solutions and Stakeholders of the Process |
title | Innovating on Inhaled Bioequivalence: A Critical Analysis of the Current Limitations, Potential Solutions and Stakeholders of the Process |
title_full | Innovating on Inhaled Bioequivalence: A Critical Analysis of the Current Limitations, Potential Solutions and Stakeholders of the Process |
title_fullStr | Innovating on Inhaled Bioequivalence: A Critical Analysis of the Current Limitations, Potential Solutions and Stakeholders of the Process |
title_full_unstemmed | Innovating on Inhaled Bioequivalence: A Critical Analysis of the Current Limitations, Potential Solutions and Stakeholders of the Process |
title_short | Innovating on Inhaled Bioequivalence: A Critical Analysis of the Current Limitations, Potential Solutions and Stakeholders of the Process |
title_sort | innovating on inhaled bioequivalence: a critical analysis of the current limitations, potential solutions and stakeholders of the process |
topic | Review |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8309038/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34371741 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/pharmaceutics13071051 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT gallegoscatalanjonattan innovatingoninhaledbioequivalenceacriticalanalysisofthecurrentlimitationspotentialsolutionsandstakeholdersoftheprocess AT warnkenzachary innovatingoninhaledbioequivalenceacriticalanalysisofthecurrentlimitationspotentialsolutionsandstakeholdersoftheprocess AT bahamondezcanastaniaf innovatingoninhaledbioequivalenceacriticalanalysisofthecurrentlimitationspotentialsolutionsandstakeholdersoftheprocess AT moragaespinozadaniel innovatingoninhaledbioequivalenceacriticalanalysisofthecurrentlimitationspotentialsolutionsandstakeholdersoftheprocess |