Under the Generic Drug User Fee Amendments (GDUFA) of 2012, Type II active pharmaceutical ingredient (API) drug master files (DMFs) must pay a user fee and pass a Completeness Assessment (CA) before they can be referenced in an Abbreviated New Drug Application (ANDA), ANDA amendment, or ANDA prior approval supplement (PAS). During the first year of GDUFA implementation, from October 1, 2012 to September 30, 2013, approximately 1,500 Type II API DMFs received at least one cycle of CA review and more than 1,100 Type II DMFs were deemed complete and published on FDA’s “Available for Reference List”. The data from CA reviews were analyzed for factors that influenced the CA review process and metrics, as well as the areas of DMF submissions which most frequently led to an incomplete CA status. The metrics analysis revealed that electronic DMFs appear to improve the completeness of submission and shorten both the review and response times. Utilizing the CA checklist to compile and proactively update the DMFs improves the chance for the DMFs to pass the CA in the first cycle. However, given that the majority of DMFs require at least two cycles of CA before being deemed complete, it is recommended that DMF fees are paid 6 months in advance of the ANDA submissions in order to avoid negatively impacting the filling status of the ANDAs.
active pharmaceutical ingredient; completeness assessment; drug master file; drug substance; GDUFA
This review further clarifies the concept of pharmaceutical quality by design (QbD) and describes its objectives. QbD elements include the following: (1) a quality target product profile (QTPP) that identifies the critical quality attributes (CQAs) of the drug product; (2) product design and understanding including identification of critical material attributes (CMAs); (3) process design and understanding including identification of critical process parameters (CPPs), linking CMAs and CPPs to CQAs; (4) a control strategy that includes specifications for the drug substance(s), excipient(s), and drug product as well as controls for each step of the manufacturing process; and (5) process capability and continual improvement. QbD tools and studies include prior knowledge, risk assessment, mechanistic models, design of experiments (DoE) and data analysis, and process analytical technology (PAT). As the pharmaceutical industry moves toward the implementation of pharmaceutical QbD, a common terminology, understanding of concepts and expectations are necessary. This understanding will facilitate better communication between those involved in risk-based drug development and drug application review.
control strategy; critical quality attributes; pharmaceutical quality by design; process understanding; product understanding
The objective of this article is to discuss the similarities and differences among bioequivalence approaches used by international regulatory authorities when reviewing applications for marketing new generic drug products which are systemically active and intended for oral administration. We focused on the 13 jurisdictions and organizations participating in the International Generic Drug Regulators Pilot. These are Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, Chinese Taipei, the European Medicines Association, Japan, Mexico, Singapore, South Korea, Switzerland, the USA, and the World Health Organization. We began with a comparison of how the various jurisdictions and organizations define a generic product and its corresponding reference product. We then compared the following bioequivalence approaches: recommended bioequivalence study designs, method of pharmacokinetic calculations and bioequivalence acceptance limits, recommendations for modifying bioequivalence study designs and limits for highly variable drugs and narrow therapeutic index drugs, provisions for waiving bioequivalence study requirements (granting biowaivers), and implementation of the Biopharmaceutics Classification System. We observed that, overall, there are more similarities than differences in bioequivalence approaches among the regulatory authorities surveyed.
bioequivalence; biopharmaceutics classification system; biowaivers; generic drugs; regulatory authority
Highly variable (HV) drugs are defined as those for which within-subject variability (%CV) in bioequivalence (BE) measures is 30% or greater. Because of this high variability, studies designed to show whether generic HV drugs are bioequivalent to their corresponding HV reference drugs may need to enroll large numbers of subjects even when the products have no significant mean differences. To avoid unnecessary human testing, the US Food and Drug Administration’s Office of Generic Drugs developed a reference-scaled average bioequivalence (RSABE) approach, whereby the BE acceptance limits are scaled to the variability of the reference product. For an acceptable RSABE study, an HV generic drug product must meet the scaled BE limit and a point estimate constraint. The approach has been implemented successfully. To date, the RSABE approach has supported four full approvals and one tentative approval of HV generic drug products.
bioequivalence; generic drugs; highly variable drugs; reference-scaled average bioequivalence; US Food and Drug Administration
The Biopharmaceutics Classification system (BCS) classifies drug substances based on aqueous solubility and intestinal permeability. The objective of this study was to use the World Health Organization Model List of Essential Medicines to determine the distribution of BCS Class 1, 2, 3, and 4 drugs in Abbreviated New drug Applications (ANDA) submissions. To categorize solubility and intestinal permeability properties of generic drugs under development, we used a list of 61 drugs which were classified as BCS 1, 2, 3, and 4 drugs with certainty in the World Health Organization Model List of Essential Medicines. Applying this list to evaluation of 263 ANDA approvals of BCS drugs during the period of 2000 to 2011 indicated 110 approvals (41.8%) for Class 1 drugs (based on both biowaiver and in vivo bioequivalence studies), 55 (20.9%) approvals for Class 2 drugs, 98 (37.3%) approvals for Class 3 drugs, and no (0%) approvals for Class 4 drugs. The present data indicated a trend of more ANDA approvals of BCS Class 1 drugs than Class 3 or Class 2 drugs. Antiallergic drugs in Class 1, drugs for pain relief in Class 2 and antidiabetic drugs in Class 3 have received the largest number of approvals during this period.
ANDA; BCS biowaiver; bioequivalence; Biopharmaceutics Classification System; generic drug product
Quantitative estimations of first-in-human (FIH) doses are critical for phase I clinical trials in drug development. Human pharmacokinetic (PK) prediction methods have been developed to project the human clearance (CL) and bioavailability with reasonable accuracy, which facilitates estimation of a safe yet efficacious FIH dose. However, the FIH dose estimation is still very challenging and complex. The aim of this article is to review the common approaches for FIH dose estimation with an emphasis on PK-guided estimation. We discuss 5 methods for FIH dose estimation, 17 approaches for the prediction of human CL, 6 methods for the prediction of bioavailability, and 3 tools for the prediction of PK profiles. This review may serve as a practical protocol for PK- or pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic-guided estimation of the FIH dose.
allometric scaling; FIH dose; in vitro–in vivo correlations; pharmacokinetics; prediction
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.
bioequivalence; harmonization; interchangeability; regulatory standards; therapeutic equivalence
In vitro dissolution testing is an important tool used for development and approval of generic dosage forms. The objective of this article is to summarize how dissolution testing is used for the approval of safe and effective generic drug products in the United States (US). Dissolution testing is routinely used for stability and quality control purposes for both oral and non-oral dosage forms. The dissolution method should be developed using an appropriate validated method depending on the dosage form. There are several ways in which dissolution testing plays a pivotal role in regulatory decision-making. It may be used to waive in vivo bioequivalence (BE) study requirements, as BE documentation for Scale Up and Post Approval Changes (SUPAC), and to predict the potential for a modified-release (MR) drug product to dose-dump if co-administered with alcoholic beverages. Thus, in vitro dissolution testing plays a major role in FDA’s efforts to reduce the regulatory burden and unnecessary human studies in generic drug development without sacrificing the quality of the drug products.
bioequivalence; biopharmaceutics; generic drugs; in vitro dissolution; quality by design
To implement Quality by Design (QbD) in drug development, scientists need tools that link drug products properties to in vivo performance. Physiologically based absorption models are potentially useful tools; yet, their utility of QbD implementation has not been discussed or explored much in the literature. We simulated pharmacokinetics (PK) of carbamazepine (CBZ) after administration of four oral formulations, immediate-release (IR) suspension, IR tablet, extended-release (XR) tablet and capsule, under fasted and fed conditions and presented a general diagram of a modeling and simulation strategy integrated with pharmaceutical development. We obtained PK parameters and absorption scale factors (ASFs) by deconvolution of the PK data for IR suspension under fasted condition. The model was validated for other PK profiles of IR formulations and used to predict PK for XR formulations. We explored three key areas where a modeling and simulation approach impacts QbD. First, the model was used to help identify optimal in vitro dissolution conditions for XR formulations. Second, identification of critical formulations variables was illustrated by a parameter sensitivity analysis of mean particle radius for the IR tablet that showed a PK shift with decreased particle radius, Cmax was increased and Tmax was decreased. Finally, virtual trial simulations allowed incorporation of inter-subject variability in the model. Virtual bioequivalence studies performed for two test formulations suggested that an in vitro dissolution test may be a more sensitive discriminative method than in vivo PK studies. In summary, a well-validated predictive model is a potentially useful tool for QbD implementation in drug development.
Electronic supplementary material
The online version of this article (doi:10.1208/s12248-010-9250-9) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
advanced compartmental absorption and transit (ACAT) model; gastroplus™; modified release (MR); quality by design (QbD)
Under the Abbreviated New Drug Application pathway, a proposed generic salmon calcitonin nasal spray is required to demonstrate pharmaceutical equivalence and bioequivalence to the brand-name counterpart or the reference listed drug. This review discusses two important aspects of pharmaceutical equivalence for this synthetic peptide nasal spray product. The first aspect is drug substance sameness, in which a proposed generic salmon calcitonin product is required to demonstrate that it contains the same active ingredient as that in the brand-name counterpart. The second aspect is comparability in product- and process-related factors that may influence immunogenicity (i.e., peptide-related impurities, aggregates, formulation, and leachates from the container/closure system). The comparability of these factors helps to ensure the product safety, particularly with respect to immunogenicity. This review also highlights the key features of in vitro and/or in vivo studies for establishing bioequivalence for a solution nasal spray containing a systemically acting salmon calcitonin.
bioequivalence; generic; immunogenicity; nasal spray; pharmaceutical equivalence; salmon calcitonin
Dry powder inhalers (DPIs) are used to deliver locally acting drugs (e.g., bronchodilators and corticosteroids) for treatment of lung diseases such as asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Demonstrating bioequivalence (BE) for DPI products is challenging, primarily due to an incomplete understanding of the relevance of drug concentrations in blood or plasma to equivalence in drug delivery to the local site(s) of action. Thus, BE of these drug/device combination products is established based on an aggregate weight of evidence, which utilizes in vitro studies to demonstrate equivalence of in vitro performance, pharmacokinetic or pharmacodynamic studies to demonstrate equivalence of systemic exposure, and pharmacodynamic and clinical endpoint studies to demonstrate equivalence in local action. This review discusses key aspects of in vitro studies in supporting the establishment of BE for generic locally acting DPI products. These aspects include comparability in device resistance and equivalence in in vitro testing for single inhalation (actuation) content and aerodynamic particle size distribution.
bioequivalence (BE); dry powder inhaler (DPI); locally acting drugs; particle size distribution; single inhalation (actuation) content
Modeling and simulation of oral drug absorption have been widely used in drug discovery, development, and regulation. Predictive absorption models are used to determine the rate and extent of oral drug absorption, facilitate lead drug candidate selection, establish formulation development strategy, and support the development of regulatory policies. This review highlights the development of recent drug absorption models including dispersion and compartmental models. The compartmental models include the compartmental absorption and transit model; Grass model; gastrointestinal transit absorption model; advanced compartmental absorption and transit model; and advanced dissolution, absorption, and metabolism model. Compared to the early absorption models, the above models developed or extended since the mid-1990s have demonstrated greatly improved predictive performance by accounting for multiple factors such as drug degradation, gastric emptying, intestinal transit, first-pass metabolism, and intestinal transport. For future model development, more heterogeneous features of the gastrointestinal tract (villous blood flow, metabolizing enzymes, and transporters), food effects, and drug–drug interactions should be fully characterized and taken into consideration. Moreover, predicting population inter- and intravariability in oral drug absorption can be useful and important for the evaluation of clinical safety and efficacy of drugs. Establishing databases and libraries that contain accurate pharmaceutical and pharmacokinetic information for commercialized and uncommercialized drugs may also be helpful for model development and validation.
advanced compartmental absorption and transit (ACAT) model; advanced dissolution, absorption, and metabolism (ADAM) model; compartmental model; dispersion model; oral drug absorption