↓ Skip to main content

Implementing the Biopharmaceutics Classification System in Drug Development: Reconciling Similarities, Differences, and Shared Challenges in the EMA and US-FDA-Recommended Approaches

Overview of attention for article published in The AAPS Journal, April 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (84th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (89th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
2 news outlets

Citations

dimensions_citation
21 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
112 Mendeley
Title
Implementing the Biopharmaceutics Classification System in Drug Development: Reconciling Similarities, Differences, and Shared Challenges in the EMA and US-FDA-Recommended Approaches
Published in
The AAPS Journal, April 2016
DOI 10.1208/s12248-016-9915-0
Pubmed ID
Authors

J.-M. Cardot, A. Garcia Arieta, P. Paixao, I. Tasevska, B. Davit

Abstract

The US-FDA recently posted a draft guideline for industry recommending procedures necessary to obtain a biowaiver for immediate-release oral dosage forms based on the Biopharmaceutics Classification System (BCS). This review compares the present FDA BCS biowaiver approach, with the existing European Medicines Agency (EMA) approach, with an emphasis on similarities, difficulties, and shared challenges. Some specifics of the current EMA BCS guideline are compared with those in the recently published draft US-FDA BCS guideline. In particular, similarities and differences in the EMA versus US-FDA approaches to establishing drug solubility, permeability, dissolution, and formulation suitability for BCS biowaiver are critically reviewed. Several case studies are presented to illustrate the (i) challenges of applying for BCS biowaivers for global registration in the face of differences in the EMA and US-FDA BCS biowaiver criteria, as well as (ii) challenges inherent in applying for BCS class I or III designation and common to both jurisdictions.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 112 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 112 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 15 13%
Student > Master 15 13%
Researcher 13 12%
Student > Bachelor 13 12%
Other 4 4%
Other 11 10%
Unknown 41 37%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 42 38%
Medicine and Dentistry 8 7%
Chemistry 6 5%
Engineering 4 4%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 <1%
Other 6 5%
Unknown 45 40%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 11. 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 18 July 2017.
All research outputs
#2,713,557
of 22,880,230 outputs
Outputs from The AAPS Journal
#98
of 1,287 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#44,982
of 298,949 outputs
Outputs of similar age from The AAPS Journal
#4
of 37 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,880,230 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 87th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,287 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.0. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% of its peers.
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 298,949 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 37 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% of its contemporaries.