IJCOPE Journal

UGC Logo DOI / ISO Logo

International Journal of Creative and Open Research in Engineering and Management

A Peer-Reviewed, Open-Access International Journal Supporting Multidisciplinary Research, Digital Publishing Standards, DOI Registration, and Academic Indexing.
Journal Information
ISSN: 3108-1754 (Online)
Crossref DOI: Available
ISO Certification: 9001:2015
Publication Fee: 599/- INR
Compliance: UGC Journal Norms
License: CC BY 4.0
Peer Review: Double Blind
Volume 02, Issue 05

Published on: May 2026

COMPARING BRANDED AND GENERIC DRUG DISSOLUTION UNDER BIOWAIVER CRITERIA: A REVIEW

Asmita Hulawale Madhvi Sawant Akanksha Jogdand

Dr Sagar Tambe

Samarth Institute of pharmacy belhe, Pune Maharashtra

Article Status

Plagiarism Passed Peer Reviewed Open Access

Available Documents

Abstract

The global pharmaceutical market increasingly depends on the interchangeability of branded and generic drug products to improve healthcare accessibility and reduce treatment costs. To ensure therapeutic consistency, generic medicines are required to demonstrate pharmaceutical and therapeutic equivalence to their branded counterparts through stringent regulatory evaluation procedures. Among these procedures, dissolution testing serves as a critical surrogate indicator of in vivo drug performance and plays a central role in assessing product quality, bioavailability, and bioequivalence. The Biopharmaceutics Classification System (BCS)-based biowaiver approach has emerged as a scientifically justified strategy that permits the waiver of costly and ethically demanding in vivo bioequivalence studies by relying primarily on in vitro dissolution data, provided specific regulatory criteria are fulfilled. This review critically evaluates published scientific evidence concerning the comparative dissolution behavior of branded and generic oral solid dosage forms, with particular emphasis on the application of BCS-based biowaiver principles under WHO, FDA, EMA, and ICH regulatory frameworks. Comparative dissolution studies indicate that although many generic products demonstrate dissolution profiles comparable to innovator products, variations may occur due to differences in excipient composition, manufacturing processes, particle size distribution, and polymorphic characteristics of the active pharmaceutical ingredient. The similarity factor (f2) remains the most widely accepted regulatory tool for dissolution profile comparison despite recognized statistical limitations. BCS Class I and III drugs continue to be the primary candidates for biowaiver approval, while selected Class II drugs may qualify under specific conditions. Overall, BCS-based biowaiver approaches represent a scientifically reliable, economically beneficial, and ethically sound alternative to in vivo bioequivalence studies when applied using validated dissolution methodologies and harmonized regulatory standards.

Keywords: Biowaiver; Dissolution profile; Generic drugs; Branded drugs; BCS classification; Similarity factor (f2); In vitro dissolution; Pharmaceutical equivalence; Biopharmaceutics Classification System; Therapeutic equivalence.

How to Cite this Paper

Hulawale, A., Sawant, M. & Jogdand, A. (2026). Comparing Branded and Generic Drug Dissolution Under Biowaiver Criteria: A Review. International Journal of Creative and Open Research in Engineering and Management, <i>02</i>(05). https://doi.org/10.55041/ijcope.v2i5.631

Hulawale, Asmita, et al.. "Comparing Branded and Generic Drug Dissolution Under Biowaiver Criteria: A Review." International Journal of Creative and Open Research in Engineering and Management, vol. 02, no. 05, 2026, pp. . doi:https://doi.org/10.55041/ijcope.v2i5.631.

Hulawale, Asmita,Madhvi Sawant, and Akanksha Jogdand. "Comparing Branded and Generic Drug Dissolution Under Biowaiver Criteria: A Review." International Journal of Creative and Open Research in Engineering and Management 02, no. 05 (2026). https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.55041/ijcope.v2i5.631.

Search & Index

References

[1] U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Generic Drugs: Questions and Answers. FDA; 2022. Available from: https://www.fda.gov/drugs/questions-answers/generic-drugs-questions-answers

[2] World Health Organization. Multisource (generic) pharmaceutical products: guidelines on registration requirements to establish interchangeability. WHO Technical Report Series No. 992, Annex 7. Geneva: WHO; 2016.

[3] IQVIA Institute for Human Data Science. The Global Use of Medicines 2023: Outlook to 2027. IQVIA; 2023.

[4] U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Generic Drug Access and Savings Report, 2020. FDA; 2020.

[5] Kesselheim AS, Misono AS, Lee JL, et al. Clinical equivalence of generic and brand-name drugs used in cardiovascular disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis. JAMA. 2008;300(21):2514–2526. doi:10.1001/jama.2008.758

[6] Patel A, Bhatt DK, Katsanis N. Pharmaceutical equivalence does not always equal therapeutic equivalence: lessons from antiepileptic drugs. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2019;106(5):989–998.

[7] Shrank WH, Liberman JN, Fischer MA, et al. Physician perceptions about generic drugs. Ann Pharmacother. 2011;45(1):31–38. doi:10.1345/aph.1P389

[8] Dressman JB, Amidon GL, Reppas C, Shah VP. Dissolution testing as a prognostic tool for oral drug absorption: immediate release dosage forms. Pharm Res. 1998;15(1):11–22.

[9] United States Pharmacopeia. USP 46-NF 41: General Chapter <711> Dissolution. Rockville, MD: United States Pharmacopeial Convention; 2023.

[10] Emami J. In vitro-in vivo correlation: from theory to applications. J Pharm Pharm Sci. 2006;9(2):169–189.

Ethical Compliance & Review Process

  • All submissions are screened under plagiarism detection.
  • Review follows editorial policy.
  • Authors retain copyright.
  • Peer Review Type: Double-Blind Peer Review
  • Published on: May 22 2026
CCBYNC

This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License. You are free to share and adapt this work for non-commercial purposes with proper attribution.

View License
Scroll to Top