1
|
Fernandes EAF, van Oudtshoorn J, Tam A, González LCA, Aurela EG, Potthast H, Mettke K, Kuribayashi R, Shimojo K, Kasuga M, Morales L, Rodríguez Z, Jones B, Ahn C, Yun E, Kim SH, Rodrigues C, Tiong T, Crane C, Walther C, Roost MS, Chen TL, Hsu LF, Braddy AC, García-Arieta A, Abalos I, Divinsky M, Alsuwyeh A, Alzenaidy B, Alharf A. The bioequivalence study design recommendations for immediate-release solid oral dosage forms in the international pharmaceutical regulators programme participating regulators and organisations: differences and commonalities. J Pharm Pharm Sci 2024; 27:12398. [PMID: 38577255 PMCID: PMC10993868 DOI: 10.3389/jpps.2024.12398] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Figures] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/09/2023] [Accepted: 02/23/2024] [Indexed: 04/06/2024]
Abstract
Bioequivalence (BE) studies are considered the standard for demonstrating that the performance of a generic drug product in the human body is sufficiently similar to that of its comparator product. The objective of this article is to describe the recommendations from participating Bioequivalence Working Group for Generics (BEWGG) members of the International Pharmaceutical Regulators Programme (IPRP) regarding the conduct and acceptance criteria for BE studies of immediate release solid oral dosage forms. A survey was conducted among BEWGG members regarding their BE recommendations and requirements related to study subjects, study design, sample size, single or multiple dose administration, study conditions (fasting or fed), analyte to be measured, selection of product strength, drug content, handling of endogenous substances, BE acceptance criteria, and additional design aspects. All members prefer conducting single dose cross-over designed studies in healthy subjects with a minimum of 12 subjects and utilizing the parent drug data to assess BE. However, differences emerged among the members when the drug's pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics become more complex, such that the study design (e.g., fasting versus fed conditions) and BE acceptance criteria (e.g., highly variable drugs, narrow therapeutic index drugs) may be affected. The survey results and discussions were shared with the ICH M13 Expert Working Group (EWG) and played an important role in identifying and analyzing gaps during the harmonization process. The draft ICH M13A guideline developed by the M13 EWG was endorsed by ICH on 20 December 2022, under Step 2.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | - Joy van Oudtshoorn
- South African Health Products Regulatory Authority, Pretoria, South Africa
| | | | | | - Erwin Guzmán Aurela
- Instituto Nacional de Vigilancia de Medicamentos y Alimentos, Bogota, Colombia
| | | | - Katalina Mettke
- Federal Institute for Drugs and Medical Devices, Bonn, Germany
| | - Ryosuke Kuribayashi
- Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare/Pharmaceuticals and Medical Devices Agency, Tokyo, Japan
| | - Kohei Shimojo
- Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare/Pharmaceuticals and Medical Devices Agency, Tokyo, Japan
| | - Miho Kasuga
- Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare/Pharmaceuticals and Medical Devices Agency, Tokyo, Japan
| | - Lázaro Morales
- Comisión Federal para la Protección contra Riesgos Sanitarios, Ciudad de Mexico, México
| | - Zulema Rodríguez
- Comisión Federal para la Protección contra Riesgos Sanitarios, Ciudad de Mexico, México
| | | | - Choongyul Ahn
- Ministry of Food and Drug Safety, Cheongju-si, Republic of Korea
| | - Eunju Yun
- Ministry of Food and Drug Safety, Cheongju-si, Republic of Korea
| | - So Hee Kim
- Ministry of Food and Drug Safety, Cheongju-si, Republic of Korea
| | | | - Toh Tiong
- Health Sciences Authority, Singapore, Singapore
| | | | | | | | | | | | - April C. Braddy
- Food and Drug Administration, Silver Spring, MD, United States
| | - Alfredo García-Arieta
- WHO-Observer, Geneva, Switzerland
- Agencia Española de Medicamentos y Productos Sanitarios, Madrid, Spain
| | - Ivana Abalos
- Administración Nacional de Medicamentos, Alimentos y Tecnología, Buenos Aires, Argentina
| | - Milly Divinsky
- Center for Pharmaceutical and Enforcement Division, Jerusalem, Israel
| | | | | | - Adel Alharf
- Saudi Food and Drug Authority, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Tam A, Garcia-Arieta A, Abalos I, Agostinho Freitas Fernandes E, Mendes Lima Santos G, Rodriguez Martinez Z, Divinsky M, Kariv R, Potthast H, Braddy AC, Rodrigues C, Guzman Aurela E, Carolina Arevalo Gonzalez L, Gutierres Triana D, Jones B, Ahn C, Kim H, Kim SH, Kuribayashi R, Myoenzono A, Shimojo K, Van Oudtshoorn J, Bigler C, Meincke R, Roost MS, Walther C, Hsu LF, Crane C, Jarman T. A Survey of the Criteria Used for the Selection of Alternative Comparator Products by Participating Regulators and Organizations of the International Pharmaceutical Regulators Programme. J Pharm Pharm Sci 2022; 25:323-339. [DOI: 10.18433/jpps33081] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/24/2022] Open
Abstract
The safety and efficacy of a generic product are partly based on demonstrating bioequivalence to the innovator product; however, when the innovator product is no longer available as a comparator product, a survey conducted within the Bioequivalence Working Group for Generics (BEWGG) of the International Pharmaceutical Regulators Programme (IPRP) indicated that the criteria for selecting an alternative comparator product varies. For most members of the BEWGG, an existing marketed generic that was approved based on a comparison with the locally registered innovator product can be used, contingent on criteria that ranges from allowing any generic to be used, to allowing only specific criteria-defined generics to be used. Notwithstanding the acceptability of a generic as an alternative comparator, it is not always the preferred comparator for several jurisdictions. Some jurisdictions require the use of a locally sourced alternative innovator comparator (e.g., the same medicinal ingredient manufactured by a different company) or a foreign innovator comparator. Unlike the other members of the BEWGG, the European Union (EU) has no such options available, rather mechanisms are in place to allow manufacturers to develop a new comparator. The criteria described herein regarding the use of an alternative comparator product can also be applied to scenarios where a specific strength of a series of strengths or an innovative fixed dose combination are discontinued. The results of the survey demonstrate that while criteria for selecting alternative comparator products are not harmonized among the BEWGG participants, the common concern for all jurisdictions is to select a comparator product that meets the safety and efficacy standards of the original innovator product.
Collapse
|
3
|
Roost MS, Potthast H, Walther C, García-Arieta A, Abalos I, Agostinho Freitas Fernandes E, Mendes Lima Santos G, Rodríguez Martínez Z, Tam A, Rodrigues C, Gutierrez Triana DA, Guzmán Aurela E, Rodríguez Rodríguez N, Aeh Park S, Kim J, Kariv R, Divinsky M, Jones B, Kuribayashi R, Myoenzono A, Kasuga M, Van Oudtshoorn J, Chi JF, Hung WY, Hsu LF, Crane C, Jarman T, Braddy A. Requirements for Additional Strength Biowaivers for Modified Release Solid Oral Dosage Forms in International Pharmaceutical Regulators Programme Participating Regulators and Organisations: Differences and Commonalities. J Pharm Pharm Sci 2021; 24:548-562. [PMID: 34706215 DOI: 10.18433/jpps32260] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/24/2022]
Abstract
This article describes an overview of waivers of in vivo bioequivalence studies for additional strengths in the context of the registration of modified release generic products and is a follow-up to the recent publication for the immediate release solid oral dosage forms. The current paper is based on a survey among the participating members of the Bioequivalence Working Group for Generics (BEWGG) of the International Pharmaceutical Regulators Program (IPRP) regarding this topic. Most jurisdictions consider the extrapolation of bioequivalence results obtained with one (most sensitive) strength of a product series as less straightforward for modified release products than for immediate release products. There is consensus that modified release products should demonstrate bioequivalence not only in the fasted state but also in the fed state, but differences exist regarding the necessity of additional multiple dose studies. Fundamental differences between jurisdictions are revealed regarding requirements on the quantitative composition of different strengths and the differentiation of single and multiple unit dosage forms. Differences in terms of in vitro dissolution requirements are obvious, though these are mostly related to possible additional comparative investigations rather than regarding the need for product-specific methods. As with the requirements for immediate release products, harmonization of the various regulations for modified release products is highly desirable to conduct the appropriate studies from a scientific point of view, thus ensuring therapeutic equivalence.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | - Henrike Potthast
- 2European Medicines Agency's (EMA) Pharmacokinetics Working Party and Bundesinstitut für Arzneimittel und Medizinprodukte (BfArM), Bonn, Germany
| | - Chantal Walther
- Swissmedic, Schweizerisches Heilmittelinstitut, Bern, Switzerland
| | - Alfredo García-Arieta
- WHO Prequalification of Medicines Programme, and Agencia Española de Medicamentos y Productos Sanitarios (AEMPS), Madrid, Spain
| | - Ivana Abalos
- Administración Nacional de Medicamentos, Alimentos y Tecnología Médica (ANMAT), Ciudad Autónoma de Buenos Aires, Argentina
| | | | - Gustavo Mendes Lima Santos
- Agência Nacional de Vigilância Sanitária (ANVISA), Brasília, Brazil; 8Comisión Federal para la Protección contra Riesgos Sanitarios (COFEPRIS), Ciudad de México, Mexico
| | | | | | - Clare Rodrigues
- Health Sciences Authority, Health Products Regulation Group, Pre-Marketing Cluster, Therapeutic Products Branch, Singapore, Singapore
| | | | - Erwin Guzmán Aurela
- Instituto Nacional de Vigilancia de Medicamentos y Alimentos (INVIMA), Bogotá. Colombia
| | | | - Sang Aeh Park
- Ministry of Food and Drug Safety, Osong-eup Heungdeok-gu, Cheongju-si, Chungcheongbuk-do, Republic of Korea
| | - Jayoung Kim
- Ministry of Food and Drug Safety, Osong-eup Heungdeok-gu, Cheongju-si, Chungcheongbuk-do, Republic of Korea
| | - Rami Kariv
- Ministry of Health (Israel), Pharmaceutical Division, Jerusalem
| | - Milly Divinsky
- Ministry of Health (Israel), Pharmaceutical Division, Jerusalem
| | - Ben Jones
- New Zealand Medicines and Medical Devices Safety Authority (Medsafe), Ministry of Health, Thorndon, Wellington, New Zealand
| | - Ryosuke Kuribayashi
- Pharmaceuticals and Medical Devices Agency (PMDA), Kasumigaseki, Chiyoda-ku, Tokyo, Japan
| | - Aya Myoenzono
- Pharmaceuticals and Medical Devices Agency (PMDA), Kasumigaseki, Chiyoda-ku, Tokyo, Japan
| | - Miho Kasuga
- Pharmaceuticals and Medical Devices Agency (PMDA), Kasumigaseki, Chiyoda-ku, Tokyo, Japan
| | - Joy Van Oudtshoorn
- South African Health Products Regulatory Authority (SAHPRA), Loftus Park, Arcadia, Pretoria, South Africa
| | | | - Wen-Yi Hung
- Taiwan Food and Drug Administration (TFDA), Nangang, Taipei, Taiwan, R.O.C
| | - Li-Feng Hsu
- Center for Drug Evaluation (CDE), Taipei, Taiwan R.O.C
| | | | - Tony Jarman
- Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA), Woden, Australia
| | - April Braddy
- U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Food and Drug Administration (USFDA), Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Office of Generic Drugs, Silver Spring, Maryland, USA
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Garcia Arieta A, Simon C, Tam A, Mendes Lima Santos G, Freitas Fernandes EA, Rodríguez Martínez Z, Rodrigues C, Park SA, Kim J, Kim K, Kuribayashi R, Myoenzono A, Shimojo K, Walther C, Roost MS, Hung WY, Hsu LF, Crane C, Braddy AC, Van Oudtshoorn J, Gutierrez Triana DA, Guzmán Aurela E, Jones B, Potthast H, Abalos I. A Survey of the Regulatory Requirements for the Waiver of In Vivo Bioequivalence Studies of Generic Products in Certain Dosage Forms by Participating Regulators and Organisations of the International Pharmaceutical Regulators Programme. J Pharm Pharm Sci 2021; 24:113-126. [DOI: 10.18433/jpps31491] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/24/2022] Open
Abstract
The requirements to waive in vivo bioequivalence studies for immediate release solid oral dosage forms based on the Biopharmaceutics Classifications System (BCS) are well known, and biowaivers[1] for other types of oral dosage forms based on pre-defined criteria may also be acceptable. Similarly, biowaivers for dosage forms such as injectable products may also be allowed if certain criteria are met. The current paper summarises the biowaiver requirements for oral solutions and suspensions, soft gelatin capsules and injectable products (intravenous injections, subcutaneous and intramuscular injections, emulsions for injection and micellar solutions for injection) among the participants of the Bioequivalence Working Group for Generics (BEWGG) of the International Pharmaceutical Regulators Programme (IPRP). A review of the requirements indicated that there was a trend towards convergence when the dosage form became less complex; however, the most common approach used by each of the jurisdictions was a case-by-case approach given that most jurisdictions do not have well defined guidelines to support all possible scenarios. Even in the simplest case of intravenous solutions, the acceptability of qualitative changes in excipients differ between the IPRP members. Notwithstanding the differences, the dissemination of the information is a first step towards regulatory convergence regarding biowaivers for certain dosage forms and should be useful for pharmaceutical companies currently developing generic medicinal products for IPRP jurisdictions.
Collapse
|
5
|
Crane C, Santos GML, Fernandes EAF, Simon C, Tam A, Triana DG, Potthast H, Kuribayashi R, Okada Y, Myoenzono A, Calderon IO, Rodriguez Z, Jones B, Park SA, Eum SY, Rodrigues C, Van Oudsthoorn J, Nolting A, Walther C, Roost MS, Hung WY, Braddy AC, Garcia-Arieta A. The Requirements for Additional Strength Biowaivers for Immediate Release Solid Oral Dosage Forms in International Pharmaceutical Regulators Programme Participating Regulators and Organisations: Differences and Commonalities. J Pharm Pharm Sci 2019; 22:486-500. [PMID: 33760728 DOI: 10.18433/jpps30724] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/24/2022]
Abstract
In relation to the registration of generic products, waivers of in vivo bioequivalence studies (biowaivers) are considered in three main cases: certain dosage forms for which bioequivalence is self-evident (e.g. intravenous solutions), biowaivers based on the Biopharmaceutics Classification System and biowaivers for additional strengths with respect to the strength for which in vivo bioequivalence has been shown. The objective of this article is to describe the differences and commonalities in biowaivers for additional strengths of immediate release solid oral dosage forms between the participating members of the International Pharmaceutical Regulators Program (IPRP). The requirements are based on five main aspects; the pharmacokinetics of the drug substance, the manufacturing process, the qualitative and quantitative composition of the different strengths, and the comparative dissolution profiles. For the pharmacokinetic aspects, many regulators/agencies have the same requirements. All strengths must be manufactured with the same process, although a few regulators/agencies accept small differences. In relation to the formulation aspects, the data required breaks down into three major approaches based initially on one of those of the EU, the USA or Japan, but there are some differences in these three major approaches with some country specific interpretations. Most regulators/agencies also have the same requirements for the dissolution data, though there are some notable exceptions.
Collapse
|