{rfName}
Ac

Indexed in

License and use

Altmetrics

Analysis of institutional authors

Ramirez, ElenaAuthorGuerra, PedroAuthorBorobia, Alberto MAuthorCarcas, Antonio JAuthorFrias, JesusCorresponding Author

Share

September 10, 2024
Publications
>
Article
No

Acceptability and characteristics of 124 human bioequivalence studies with active substances classified according to the Biopharmaceutic Classification System

Publicated to:BRITISH JOURNAL OF CLINICAL PHARMACOLOGY. 70 (5): 694-702 - 2010-11-01 70(5), DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2125.2010.03757.x

Authors: Ramirez, Elena; Laosa, Olga; Guerra, Pedro; Duque, Blanca; Mosquera, Beatriz; Borobia, Alberto M; Lei, Suhua H; Carcas, Antonio J; Frias, Jesus

Affiliations

Univ Autonoma Madrid, Sch Med, Hosp Univ Paz, Clin Pharmacol Serv, E-28029 Madrid, Spain - Author

Abstract

center dot In USA and Europe the classical way to guarantee equivalence between different formulations is the bioequivalence (BE) study based on in vivo bioavailability. center dot The Biopharmaceutic Classification System (BCS) classifies active substances into four different groups according to their aqueous solubility and intestinal permeability. center dot Recently the European Medicines Agency (EMA) has released a new bioequivalence guideline for immediate release solid oral dosage forms that includes recommendations on BCS-based biowaivers. WHAT THIS STUDY ADDS center dot As far as we know this is the first time that the probability of proving BE of more than one hundred BE studies with 80 active substances categorized according to BCS was evaluated. center dot Despite the usually employed test dissolution methodology proposed as quality control, pharmaceutical products with active substances from the four classes of BCS showed non-BE studies. AIM The aim of this study was to evaluate the acceptability of 124 bioequivalence (BE) studies with 80 active substances categorized according to the Biopharmaceutics Classification System (BCS) in order to establish if there were different probabilities of proving BE between the different BCS classes. METHODS We evaluated the differences between pharmaceutical products with active substances from different BCS classes in terms of acceptability, number of subjects in the study (n), the point estimates, and intra- and inter-subject coefficients of variation data from BE studies with generic products. RESULTS Out of 124 BE studies 89 (71.77%) were performed with pharmaceutical products containing active substances classified by the BCS. In all BCS classes there were non-bioequivalent pharmaceutical products: 4 out of 26 (15.38%) in class 1, 14 out of 28 (50%) in class 2, 3 out of 22 (13.63%) in class 3 and 1 out of 13 (7.69%) in class 4. When we removed those pharmaceutical products in which intra-subject variability was higher than predicted (2 in class 1 active substances, 9 in class 2 and 2 in class 3) there were still non-BE pharmaceutical products in classes 1, 2 and 3. CONCLUSIONS Comparisons between pharmaceutical products with active substances from the four BCS classes have not allowed us to define differential characteristics of each class in terms of n, inter and intra-subject variability for C-max or AUC. Despite the usually employed test dissolution methodology proposed as quality control, pharmaceutical products with active substances from the four classes of BCS showed non-BE studies.

Keywords

BcsBioequivalence studiesBiopharmaceutics classification systeBiopharmaceutics classification systemDrugSample-size

Quality index

Bibliometric impact. Analysis of the contribution and dissemination channel

The work has been published in the journal BRITISH JOURNAL OF CLINICAL PHARMACOLOGY due to its progression and the good impact it has achieved in recent years, according to the agency Scopus (SJR), it has become a reference in its field. In the year of publication of the work, 2010, it was in position , thus managing to position itself as a Q1 (Primer Cuartil), in the category Pharmacology (Medical).

From a relative perspective, and based on the normalized impact indicator calculated from the Field Citation Ratio (FCR) of the Dimensions source, it yields a value of: 13.59, which indicates that, compared to works in the same discipline and in the same year of publication, it ranks as a work cited above average. (source consulted: Dimensions Jul 2025)

Specifically, and according to different indexing agencies, this work has accumulated citations as of 2025-07-16, the following number of citations:

  • WoS: 67
  • Scopus: 71
  • Europe PMC: 33

Impact and social visibility

From the perspective of influence or social adoption, and based on metrics associated with mentions and interactions provided by agencies specializing in calculating the so-called "Alternative or Social Metrics," we can highlight as of 2025-07-16:

  • The use of this contribution in bookmarks, code forks, additions to favorite lists for recurrent reading, as well as general views, indicates that someone is using the publication as a basis for their current work. This may be a notable indicator of future more formal and academic citations. This claim is supported by the result of the "Capture" indicator, which yields a total of: 96 (PlumX).

Leadership analysis of institutional authors

There is a significant leadership presence as some of the institution’s authors appear as the first or last signer, detailed as follows: First Author (RAMIREZ GARCIA, ELENA) and Last Author (FRIAS INIESTA, JESUS A.).

the author responsible for correspondence tasks has been FRIAS INIESTA, JESUS A..