Current Challenges in Bioequivalence, Quality, and Novel Assessment Technologies for Topical Products
- 1.6k Downloads
This paper summarises the proceedings of a recent workshop which brought together pharmaceutical scientists and dermatologists from academia, industry and regulatory agencies to discuss current regulatory issues and industry practices for establishing therapeutic bioequivalence (BE) of dermatologic topical products. The methods currently available for assessment of BE were reviewed as well as alternatives and the advantages and disadvantages of each method were considered. Guidance on quality and performance of topical products was reviewed and a framework to categorise existing and alternative methods for evaluation of BE was discussed. The outcome of the workshop emphasized both a need for greater attention to quality, possibly, via a Quality-By-Design (QBD) approach and a need to develop a “whole toolkit” approach towards the problem of determination of rate and extent in the assessment of topical bioavailability. The discussion on the BE and clinical equivalence of topical products revealed considerable concerns about the variability present in the current methodologies utilized by the industry and regulatory agencies. It was proposed that academicians, researchers, the pharmaceutical industry and regulators work together to evaluate and validate alternative methods that are based on both the underlying science and are adapted to the drug product itself instead of single “universal” method.
KEY WORDSbioequivalence dermatologic topical product generic in vitro in vivo quality-by-design
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS AND DISCLOSURES
The views expressed here are the views of the scientists and do not represent the policy of their respective agencies or organization.
The Product Quality Research Institute (PQRI) is a non-profit consortium of organizations working together to generate and share timely, relevant, and impactful information that advances drug product quality and development.
By virtue of its diverse membership, PQRI provides a unique forum to focus critical thinking, conduct research, exchange information, and propose methodology or guidance to pharmaceutical companies, regulators, and standard setting organizations.
- 1.US Department of Health and Human Services, Food and Drug Administration, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER). Guidance for Industry. Bioavailability and bioequivalence studies for orally administered drug products—general considerations.2003.Google Scholar
- 2.Code of Federal Regulations. Title 21 Part 320 0.24 (b) (1–4)Google Scholar
- 4.Abbreviated New Drug Application 202459.Google Scholar
- 5.Guidance: topical dermatologic corticosteroids: in vivo bioequivalence, Office of Generic Drugs, Center for Drug Evaluations and Research, FDA. 1995.Google Scholar
- 6.US Department of Health and Human Services, Food and Drug Administration, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER). Guidance for Industry: Waiver of In Vivo Bioavailability and Bioequivalence Studies for Immediate-Release Solid Oral Dosage Forms Based on a Biopharmaceutics Classification System, 2000.Google Scholar
- 7.Generic Drug Savings in the US. Fourth Annual Edition. Generic Pharmaceutical Association. 2012.Google Scholar
- 8.BE Recommendation for Specific Products webpage: www.fda.gov/Drugs/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/Guidances/ucm075207.htm.
- 11.Abbreviated New Drug Application 200675.Google Scholar
- 13.US FDA. Guidance for Industry: Topical dermatological drug product NDAs and ANDAs-in vivo bioavailability, bioequivalence, in vitro release, and associated studies. Draft Guidance, June 1998, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Food and Drug Administration, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research. 1998.Google Scholar
- 14.US FDA. Guidance for industry on special protocol assessment; availability. Fed Regist. 2002;67:35122.Google Scholar
- 15.Pershing LK. Bioequivalence assessment of three 0.025% tretinoin gel products: Dermatopharmacokinetic vs. Clinical Trial Methods, Transcribed presentation to the Advisory Committee for Pharmaceutical Sciences Meeting. Rockville: Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, FDA; 2001.Google Scholar
- 16.Franz TJ. Study #1, Avita Gel 0.025% vs Retin-A Gel 0.025%, Transcribed presentation, Advisory Committee for Pharmaceutical Sciences Meeting. Rockville: Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, FDA; 2001.Google Scholar
- 17.Bunge AL, N’Dri-Stempfer B, Navidi WC, Guy RH. Dermatopharmacokinetics: improvement of methodology for assessing bioequivalence of topical dermatological drug products, Revised Final Report, Award No. D3921303, Submitted to Department of Health and Human Services. Golden: FDA, Colorado School of Mines; 2006.Google Scholar
- 18.Bunge AL, N’Dri-Stempfer B, Navidi WC, Guy RH. Therapeutic Equivalence of Topical Products, Final Report, Award No. 223-04-3004, Submitted to Department of Health and Human Services, FDA, Colorado School of Mines, Golden, CO, January 30, 2007 (Revision submitted June 2008).Google Scholar
- 19.Au WL, Skinner M, Kanfer I. Comparison of tape stripping with the human skin blanching assay for the bioequivalence assessment of topical clobetasol propionate formulation. J Pharm Pharmaceut Sci. 2010;13:11–20.Google Scholar
- 20.Parfitt NR, Skinner M, Bon C, Kanfer I. Bioequivalence of topical clotrimazole formulations: an improved tape stripping method. J Pharm Pharmaceut Sci. 2011;14:347–57.Google Scholar
- 23.Ungerstedt U. Measurement of neurotransmitter release by intracranial dialysis. In: Marsden CA, editor. Measurement of neurotransmitter release in vivo. Chichester: Wiley; 1984. p. 81–105.Google Scholar
- 27.Ortiz PG, Hansen SH, Shah VP, Menné T, Benfeldt E. Impact of adult atopic dermatitis on topical drug penetration: assessment by cutaneous microdialysis and tape stripping. Acta Derm Venereol. 2009;89:33–8.Google Scholar
- 32.Bodenlenz M, Hoefferer C, Priedl J, Dragatin C, Korsatko S, Liebenberger L, et al. A novel certified dermal sampling system for efficient clinical research. J Invest Dermatol. 2011;131 Suppl 2:S44.Google Scholar
- 38.Puppels GJ, Sterenborg HJCM. Laser safety aspects of the use of the Model 3510 Skin Composition Analyzer (SCA) in in vivo studies of human subjects. River Diagnostics. 2007. 23 pp.Google Scholar
- 40.OECD (2004) Test No. 428: Skin Absorption: In vitro method. OECD 2004 8 pp.Google Scholar
- 43.FDA. SUPAC-SS nonsterile semisolid dosage forms, scale-up and postapproval changes: chemistry, manufacturing, and controls; in vitro release testing and in vivo bioequivalence documentation. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Washington,DC. 1997. http://www.fda.gov/cder/guidance/1447fnl.pdf(accessed 09 April 2007).