Due to complex interdependent relationships affecting their microstructure, topical semisolid drug formulations face unique obstacles to the development of generics compared to other drug products. Traditionally, establishing bioequivalence is based on comparative clinical trials, which are expensive and often associated with high degrees of variability and low sensitivity in detecting formulation differences. To address this issue, leading regulatory agencies have aimed to advance guidelines relevant to topical generics, ultimately accepting different non-clinical, in vitro/in vivo surrogate methods for topical bioequivalence assessment. Unfortunately, according to both industry and academia stakeholders, these efforts are far from flawless, and often upsurge the potential for result variability and a number of other failure modes. This paper offers a comprehensive review of the literature focused on amending regulatory positions concerning the demonstration of (i) extended pharmaceutical equivalence and (ii) equivalence with respect to the efficacy of topical semisolids. The proposed corrective measures are disclosed and critically discussed, as they span from mere demands to widen the acceptance range (e.g., from ±10% to ±20%/±25% for rheology and in vitro release parameters highly prone to batch-to-batch variability) or reassess the optimal number of samples required to reach the desired statistical power, but also rely on specific data modeling or novel statistical approaches.

Contemporary trends in combinatorial chemistry and the design of pharmaceuticals targeting brain disorders have favored the development of drug candidates with increased lipophilicity and poorer water solubility, with the expected improvement in delivery across the blood–brain barrier (BBB). The growing availability of innovative excipients/ligands allowing improved brain targeting and controlled drug release makes the lipid nanocarriers a reasonable choice to overcome the factors impeding drug delivery through the BBB. However, a wide variety of methods, study designs and experimental conditions utilized in the literature hinder their systematic comparison, and thus slows the advances in brain-targeting by lipid-based nanoparticles. This review provides an overview of the methods most commonly utilized during the preclinical testing of liposomes, nanoemulsions, solid lipid nanoparticles and nanostructured lipid carriers intended for the treatment of various CNS disorders via the parenteral route. In order to fully elucidate the structure, stability, safety profiles, biodistribution, metabolism, pharmacokinetics and immunological effects of such lipid-based nanoparticles, a transdisciplinary approach to preclinical characterization is mandatory, covering a comprehensive set of physical, chemical, in vitro and in vivo biological testing.

Vaccination has been well recognised as a critically important tool in preventing infectious disease, yet incomplete immunisation coverage remains a major obstacle to achieving disease control and eradication. As medical products for global access, vaccines need to be safe, effective and inexpensive. In line with these goals, continuous improvements of vaccine delivery strategies are necessary to achieve the full potential of immunisation. Novel technologies related to vaccine delivery and route of administration, use of advanced adjuvants and controlled antigen release (single-dose immunisation) approaches are expected to contribute to improved coverage and patient compliance. This review discusses the application of micro- and nano-technologies in the alternative routes of vaccine administration (mucosal and cutaneous vaccination), oral vaccine delivery as well as vaccine encapsulation with the aim of controlled antigen release for single-dose vaccination.

Topical film-forming systems (FFS) change drastically after solvent displacement, therefore indicating their skin metamorphosis/transformation as a property of special regulatory and research interest. This paper deals with the lack of suitable characterization techniques, suggesting a set of methods able to provide a comprehensive notion of FFS skin performance. After screening the physico-chemical, mechanical and sensory properties of FFS and resulting films, an elaborate three-phase in vivo study was performed, covering skin irritation, friction and substantivity. Upon removal of 24-hour occlusion, no significant change in erythema index was observed, while the film-former type (cellulose ether, acrylate and/or vinyl polymer) affected transepidermal water loss (TEWL); hydrophobic methacrylate copolymer-based samples decreased TEWL by 40–50%, suggesting a semi-occlusive effect. Although both the tribological parameters related to the friction coefficient and the friction curve’s plateau provided valuable data, their analysis indicated the importance of the moment the plateau is reached as the onset of the secondary formulation, while the tertiary state is still best described by the completion of the film’s drying time. The final part of the in vivo study proved the high in-use substantivity of all samples but confirmed the optimal 4:1 ratio of hydrophobic cationic and hydrophilic polymers, as indicated during early physico-mechanical screening.

Since natural-origin, sustainable ingredients are preferred by modern consumers, novel emulsifiers and emollients keep entering the market. This study hypothesizes that a combination of in silico, instrumental tools and simplified sensory studies could be used to efficiently characterize emulsions in a shorter timeframe. A total of 22 rather simple o/w emulsions were prepared by a time/energy-saving emulsification process. A natural mixed emulsifier (Lauryl Glucoside/Myristyl Glucoside/Polyglyceryl-6 Laurate) and two emollients (both with INCI name C15–19 Alkane) were used. The performed D-optimal experimental design within the response surface method (RSM) significantly narrowed down the number of samples about to enter the stage of texture, friction and sensory studies to the samples comprising 30% of a respective Emogreen emollient and 2% or 3% of the emulsifier. The sample comprising 2% emulsifier/30% Emogreen^® L15 showed significantly higher firmness (42.12 mN) when compared to the one with 2% emulsifier/30% Emogreen^® L19 (33.62 mN), which was somewhat unexpected considering the emollients’ inherent viscosity values (4.5 mPa·s for L15 and 9 mPa·s for L19). The sample with 2% emulsifier/30% Emogreen^® L19 managed to maintain the lowest friction, while the one with 3% emulsifier/30% Emogreen^® L19 released its full lubricating potential in the second part of the measurement (30–60 s). The obtained results revealed the strengths and weaknesses of each formulation, narrowing down their possible applications in the early development stage.