We recommend that regulatory agencies add the extent of drug metabolism (i.e., ≥90% metabolized) as an alternate method in defining Class 1 marketed drugs suitable for a waiver of in vivo studies of bioequivalence. That is, ≥90% metabolized is an additional methodology that may be substituted for ≥90% absorbed. We propose that the following criteria be used to define ≥ 90% metabolized for marketed drugs: Following a single oral dose to humans, administered at the highest dose strength, mass balance of the Phase 1 oxidative and Phase 2 conjugative drug metabolites in the urine and feces, measured either as unlabeled, radioactive labeled or nonradioactive labeled substances, account for ≥ 90% of the drug dosed. This is the strictest definition for a waiver based on metabolism. For an orally administered drug to be ≥ 90% metabolized by Phase 1 oxidative and Phase 2 conjugative processes, it is obvious that the drug must be absorbed. This proposal, which strictly conforms to the present ≥90% criteria, is a suggested modification to facilitate a number of marketed drugs being appropriately assigned to Class 1.

Regulatory approaches for evaluating therapeutic equivalence of multisource (or generic) drug products vary among different countries and/or regions. Harmonization of these approaches may decrease the number of in vivo bioequivalence studies and avoid unnecessary drug exposure to humans. Global harmonization for regulatory requirements may be promoted by a better understanding of factors underlying product performance and expectations from different regulatory authorities. This workshop provided an opportunity for pharmaceutical scientists from academia, industry and regulatory agencies to have open discussions on current regulatory issues and industry practices, facilitating harmonization of regulatory approaches for establishing therapeutic equivalence and interchangeability of multisource drug products.

In 2003, the FIP Dissolution Working group published a position paper on dissolution/drug release testing for special/novel dosage forms that represented the scientific opinions of many experts in the field at that time (1). The position paper has supported activities, programs, and decisions in the scientific, technical, and regulatory community. Due to the rapid evolution of new practices and techniques for in vitro testing, the FIP Special Interest Group (SIG) on Dissolution/Drug Release decided to revise the previous paper and added proposals for further harmonization of in vitro release testing practices for different pharmaceutical dosage forms. This article represents the current updates to the previously published paper. This revision has been aligned to coincide with the USP taxonomy including route of administration, intended site of drug release, and dosage form. The revised paper includes information from current literature, expert discussions, and presentations from recent workshops (2,3). The authors acknowledge and expect further updates to be made as additional progress is made in the relevant areas. Thus, comments and additional contributions are welcome and may be considered for the next revision of the position paper.

Modified release products are complex dosage forms designed to release drug in a controlled manner to achieve desired efficacy and safety. Inappropriate control of drug release from such products may result in reduced efficacy or increased toxicity. This workshop provided an opportunity for pharmaceutical scientists from academia, industry, and regulatory agencies to discuss current industry practices and regulatory expectations for demonstrating pharmaceutical equivalence and bioequivalence of MR products, further facilitating the establishment of regulatory standards for ensuring therapeutic equivalence of these products.

The qualification process for ensuring that a paddle or basket apparatus is suitable for its intended use is a highly debated and controversial topic. Different instrument qualification and suitability methods have been proposed by the pharmacopeias and regulatory bodies. In an effort to internationally harmonize dissolution apparatus suitability requirements, the International Pharmaceutical Federation's (FIP) Dissolution/Drug Release Special Interest Group (SIG) reviewed current instrument suitability requirements listed in the US, European, and Japanese pharmacopeias and the International Conference on Harmonization (ICH) Topic Q4B on harmonization of pharmacopoeial methods, in its Annex 7, Dissolution Test General. In addition, the SIG reviewed the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Draft Guidance for Industry, “The Use of Mechanical Calibration of Dissolution Apparatus 1 and 2—Current Good Manufacturing Practice (CGMP)” and the related ASTM Standard E2503-07. Based on this review and several in-depth discussions, the FIP Dissolution/Drug Release SIG recommends that the qualification of a dissolution test instrument should be performed following the calibration requirements as indicated in the FDA (draft) guidance. If additional system performance information is desired, a performance verification test using US Pharmacopeia Reference Standard tablet or an established in-house reference product can be conducted. Any strict requirement on the use of a specific performance verification test tablet is not recommended at this time.

The workshop “Pharmacogenetics in Individualized Medicine: Methods, Regulatory, and Clinical Applications” was held November 15–16, 2008 in Atlanta, Georgia, USA. This workshop provided an opportunity for pharmaceutical scientists, clinical practitioners, clinical laboratory scientists, and FDA to discuss methods, regulatory, and the application of pharmacogenetics in clinical practice and drug discovery. Key highlights of the workshop were: (a) the use of genetic information in individualized medicine has significant potential in advancing drug development and human health by optimizing drug response, drug efficacy, and preventing adverse drug reactions; (b) various barriers exist preventing the advance of the individualized medicine in the society, industry, and clinical practice; and (c) the barriers may be overcome by integrated approaches; the education of researchers, clinical practitioners, and patients and fostering interactive communication among stakeholders. By targeting the AAPS audience, this workshop was one step among many steps that AAPS–FIP is intending to take towards removing the barriers to widespread uptake of pharmacogenetics in drug discovery and clinical practice.

The Board of Pharmaceutical Sciences (BPS) of the International Pharmaceutical Federation (FIP) has developed a view on the future of pharmaceutical sciences in 2020. This followed an international conference with invited participants from various fields (academicians, scientists, regulators, industrialists, venture capitalists) who shared their views on the forces that might determine how the pharmaceutical sciences will look in 2020. The commentary here provides a summary of major research activities that will drive drug discovery and development, enabling technologies for pharmaceutical sciences, paradigm shifts in drug discovery, development and regulations, and changes in education to meet the demands of academia, industry and regulatory institutions for pharmaceutical sciences in 2020.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s11095-009-0048-3) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Conclusion

For quantitative bioanalytical method validation procedure and requirements, there was a relatively good agreement between chromatographic assays and ligand-binding assays. It was realized that the quantitative and qualitative aspects of bioanalytical method validation should be reviewed and applied appropriately.Some of the major concerns between the 2 methodologies related to the acceptable total error for precision and accuracy determination and acceptance criteria for an analytical run. The acceptable total error for precision and accuracy for both the methodologies is less than 30. The 4–6–15 rule for accepting an analytical run by a chromatographic method remained acceptable while a 4–6–20 rule was recommended for ligand-binding methodology.The 3rd AAPS/FDA Bioanalytical Workshop clarified the issues related to placement of QC samples, determination of matrix effect, stability considerations, use of internal standards, and system suitability tests.There was a major concern and issues raised with respect to stability and reproducibility of incurred samples. This should be addressed for all analytical methods employed. It was left to the investigators to use their scientific judgment to address the issue.In general, the 3rd AAPS/FDA Bioanalytical Workshop provided a forum to discuss and clarify regulatory concerns regarding bioanalytical method validation issues.

Conclusion

The purpose of the use of analytical instruments is to generate reliable data. Instrument qualification helps fulfill this purpose. No authoritative guide exists that considers the risk of instrument failure and combines that risk with users' scientific knowledge and ability to use the instrument to deliver reliable and consistent data. In the absence of such a guide, the qualification of analytical instruments has become a subjective and often fruitless document-generating exercise.

Taking its cue from the new FDA initiative, “Pharmaceutical GMP's for the 21st Century,” an efficient, science- and risk-based process for AIQ was discussed at a workshop on analytical instrument qualification. This report represents the distillate of deliberations on the complicated issues associated with the various stages of analytical instrument qualification. It emphasizes AIQ's place in the overall process of obtaining quality reliable data from analytical instruments and offers an efficient process for its performance, one that focuses on scientific value rather than on producing documents. Implementing such a process should remove ambiguous interpretations by various groups.

Griseofulvin, an orally effective antimicrobial agent, appears in the stratum corneum within 4-8 h after oral administration. Griseofulvin distribution was found to be highest in the outermost layers of the stratum corneum (level I, 20.8±1.5 ng/mg) and lowest inside (level II, 10.0±1.5; level III, 7.5±2.2 ng/mg). In order to study the precise mechanism of griseofulvin transfer to stratum corneum, the role of sweat in the accumulation of griseofulvin was considered. Heat-induced total body sweating decreased the mean stratum corneum concentration of griseofulvin by 55%, and 200-300 ng of griseofulvin accumulated per ml of sweat. A silicone hydrophobic resin was used to differentiate between “wash-off” and carrier properties of sweat for griseofulvin. Prevention of transepidermal water and sweat loss by (a) topical application of formaldehyde-releasing cream to one palm, (b) occlusion by a 2 × 2-cm patch on one arm, and (c) wearing a rubber glove for 24 h, showed a lower griseofulvin concentration when compared to control areas in the same subjects. The results of the gloved hand experiment show that a complete equilibrium is established at all three levels of stratum corneum, thereby removing the reversed gradient. These results support the hypothesis that a “wick effect” is responsible for the observed reversed drug gradient within the stratum corneum. The results of the experiments suggest that sweat and transepidermal fluid loss play an important role in griseofulvin transfer in stratum corneum.

The workshop “Bioequivalence, Biopharmaceutics Classification System, and Beyond” was held May 21–23, 2007 in North Bethesda, MD, USA. This workshop provided an opportunity for pharmaceutical scientists to discuss the FDA guidance on the Biopharmaceutics Classification System (BCS), bioequivalence of oral products, and related FDA initiatives such as the FDA Critical Path Initiative. The objective of this Summary Workshop Report is to document the main points from this workshop. Key highlights of the workshop were (a) the described granting of over a dozen BCS-based biowaivers by the FDA for Class I drugs whose formulations exhibit rapid dissolution, (b) continued scientific support for biowaivers for Class III compounds whose formulations exhibit very rapid dissolution, (c) scientific support for a number of permeability methodologies to assess BCS permeability class, (d) utilization of BCS in pharmaceutical research and development, and (e) scientific progress in in vitro dissolution methods to predict dosage form performance.