↓ Skip to main content

Common Deficiencies of in vitro Binding Bioequivalence (BE) Studies Submitted in Abbreviated New Drug Applications (ANDAs)

Overview of attention for article published in The AAPS Journal, January 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Readers on

mendeley
6 Mendeley
Title
Common Deficiencies of in vitro Binding Bioequivalence (BE) Studies Submitted in Abbreviated New Drug Applications (ANDAs)
Published in
The AAPS Journal, January 2018
DOI 10.1208/s12248-017-0182-5
Pubmed ID
Authors

Dongmei Lu, Diana Vivian, Ping Ren, Yongsheng Yang, Hongling Zhang, Xiaojian Jiang, Ethan Stier

Abstract

There are several drug products that bind phosphate or bile acid in the gastrointestinal (GI) tract to exert their therapeutic efficacy. In vitro binding studies are used to assess bioequivalence (BE) of these products. The objective of this study is to identify the common deficiencies in Abbreviated New Drug Applications (ANDAs) for these products. Deficiencies were compiled from ANDAs containing in vitro binding BE studies. The deficiencies were classified into eight categories: Pre-Study Method Validation, During-Study Sample Analysis, Study Design, Study Procedure, Dissolution/Disintegration, Analytical Site Inspection, Data Submission, and Formulations. Within each category, additional subcategories were defined to characterize the deficiencies. A total of 712 deficiencies from 95 ANDAs for 11 drug products were identified and included in the analysis. The four categories with the most deficiencies were During-Study Sample Analysis (27.8%), Pre-Study Method Validation (17.3%), Data Submission (16.7%), and Study Design (15.7%). For the During-Study Sample Analysis category, failure to submit complete raw data or analytical runs ranked as the top deficiency (32.8%). For the Study Design category, using an unacceptable alternate study design (26.8%) was the most common deficiency. Within this category, other commonly occurring deficiencies included incorrect/insufficient number of absorbent concentrations, failure to pre-treat drug product with acid, insufficient number of replicates in study, incorrect calculation of k1 and k2 values, incorrect dosage form or pooled samples used in the study, and incorrect pH of study medium. The review and approval of these products may be accelerated if these common deficiencies are addressed in the original ANDA submissions.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 6 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 6 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 2 33%
Student > Ph. D. Student 1 17%
Student > Master 1 17%
Unknown 2 33%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 2 33%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 17%
Unknown 3 50%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 25 May 2018.
All research outputs
#15,522,480
of 23,070,218 outputs
Outputs from The AAPS Journal
#923
of 1,296 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#270,995
of 443,453 outputs
Outputs of similar age from The AAPS Journal
#11
of 31 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,070,218 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,296 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.0. This one is in the 18th percentile – i.e., 18% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 443,453 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 29th percentile – i.e., 29% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 31 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 48th percentile – i.e., 48% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.