Batch Selection via In Vitro/In Vivo Correlation in Pharmacokinetic Bioequivalence Testing

Update on the advances and challenges in bioequivalence testing methods for complex topical generic products

Most of the government regulatory agencies, including the United States Food and Drug Administration and the European Medicine Agency, demand that the generic complex topical products prove pharmaceutical and bioequivalence. The evaluation of bioequivalence for complex topical dermatological formulations is a challenging task that requires careful consideration of several factors. Although comparative clinical studies are still considered the gold standard approach for establishing bioequivalence in most formulations, these studies can be costly and insensitive to detect formulation differences. Therefore, significant efforts have been made to develop and validate alternative approaches that demonstrate bioequivalence and expedite the availability of high-quality generic topical dermatological products. This article reviews the current methods for determining the bioequivalence of topical formulations in humans, with particular emphasis on recent advances in these methodologies. Most of the alternative methods are sensitive and reproducible, with the capability to ease the financial burden of comparative clinical studies within a short delivery time. The limitations associated with each technique are reviewed in detail.

Generic dry powder inhalers bioequivalence: Batch-to-batch variability insights

Active pharmaceutical ingredient(s) [API(s)] of dry powder inhalers (DPIs) deposition and their fate in the respiratory system are influenced by a complex matrix of formulation, device, manufacturing and physiological variations. DPIs on the market have shown bioinequivalence between batches of the same product. Despite being clinically insignificant, they affect bioequivalence studies when a generic product is compared with the originator. This review discusses implications of batch-to-batch variability on bioequivalence study outcomes and shortcomings of current regulatory requirements. Possible formulation and manufacturing factors resulting in batch-to-batch variability highlight the inherent nature of this issue. Despite scholarly investigations and official regulatory guidance, there remains a need for reliable and realistic in vitro tests that accurately guide a representative reference product batch selection.

Research Progress of Preparation Technology of Ion-Exchange Resin Complexes

As insoluble polymer materials, ion-exchange resins (IERs) can exchange their own ions with desirable charged ions in the solution. According to the affinity of active moieties for soluble counterions, IERs could be categorized into the following four types: strongly acidic cation, weakly acidic cation, strongly basic anion, and weakly basic anion exchange resins. Due to their relative safety and high drug-loading capacity, IERs have garnered extensive attention in the pharmaceutical field since the 1950s. As numerous investigations combine drugs with IERs, this article summarizes the technologies employed in these studies from four aspects: IER screening principles, combining technologies, characterization methods, and in vitro and in vivo release of drug-resinate complexes. In addition, the advantages and disadvantages of various technologies and their scope are expounded. The article provides new insights on the preparation of ion-exchange resin complexes.

Performance of Multiple-Batch Approaches to Pharmacokinetic Bioequivalence Testing for Orally Inhaled Drug Products with Batch-to-Batch Variability

Batch-to-batch pharmacokinetic (PK) variability of orally inhaled drug products has been documented and can render single-batch PK bioequivalence (BE) studies unreliable; results from one batch may not be consistent with a repeated study using a different batch, yet the goal of PK BE is to deliver a product comparison that is interpretable beyond the specific batches used in the study. We characterized four multiple-batch PK BE approaches to improve outcome reliability without increasing the number of clinical study participants. Three approaches include multiple batches directly in the PK BE study with batch identity either excluded from the statistical model (“Superbatch”) or included as a fixed or random effect (“Fixed Batch Effect,” “Random Batch Effect”). A fourth approach uses a bio-predictive in vitro test to screen candidate batches, bringing the median batch of each product into the PK BE study (“Targeted Batch”). Three of these approaches (Fixed Batch Effect, Superbatch, Targeted Batch) continue the single-batch PK BE convention in which uncertainty in the Test/Reference ratio estimate due to batch sampling is omitted from the Test/Reference confidence interval. All three of these approaches provided higher power to correctly identify true bioequivalence than the standard single-batch approach with no increase in clinical burden. False equivalence (type I) error was inflated above the expected 5% level, but multiple batches controlled type I error better than a single batch. The Random Batch Effect approach restored 5% type I error, but had low power for small (e.g., <8) batch sample sizes using standard [0.8000, 1.2500] bioequivalence limits.