Pharmaceutical Research

, 36:13 | Cite as

Bioequivalence Study Methods with Pharmacokinetic Endpoints for Topical Ophthalmic Corticosteroid Suspensions and Effects of Subject Demographics

  • Yoriko HarigayaEmail author
  • Xiaojian Jiang
  • Hongling Zhang
  • Parthapratim Chandaroy
  • Ethan M. Stier
  • Yuzhuo Pan
Research Paper
Part of the following topical collections:
  1. Ophthalmic Drug Discovery and Development



To establish bioequivalence for topical ophthalmic corticosteroid suspensions, some of U.S. product-specific guidances (PSGs) for generic drug products recommend evaluation of aqueous humor (AH) pharmacokinetics (PK). However, the AH PK study is complex because the relationships among AH PK, subject demographics, ocular anatomy, physiology and the compounds’ physicochemical characteristics are not well understood. The objective of this research is to provide an overview of the in vivo human AH studies submitted to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for ophthalmic corticosteroid suspensions and to investigate the impact of subject demographics on the human AH PK.


We summarized demographic data, sampling time points, sample size per time point and PK parameters to investigate correlations in the studies submitted to the FDA.


In the evaluation of subject-specific covariates, the area under the concentration-time curves (AUC) and maximum concentrations (Cmax) were significantly different among ethnicities and age groups. Gender was not primarily associated with differences in AH PK.


Our results suggest that the difference in ethnicity and age of the study population play an important role in the AH PK profiles of topical ophthalmic corticosteroid suspensions. Considering the subject-specific covariate effects in designing bioequivalence studies with AH PK endpoints could reduce bias from covariate imbalance and help identify true effects of formulation differences.


Aqueous humor bioequivalence ocular pharmacokinetics ophthalmic corticosteroid suspensions subject demographics 



  1. 1.
    Ghate D, Edelhauser HF. Ocular drug delivery. Expert Opin Drug Deliv. 2006;3(2):275–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Edelhauser HF, Maren TH. Permeability of human cornea and sclera to sulfonamide carbonic anhydrase inhibitors. Arch Ophthalmol (Chicago, Ill : 1960). 1988;106(8):1110–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Durairaj C. Ocular Pharmacokinetics. Handb Exp Pharmacol. 2017;242:31–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Ahmed I, Patton TF. Importance of the noncorneal absorption route in topical ophthalmic drug delivery. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 1985;26(4):584–7.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Gaudana R, Ananthula HK, Parenky A, Mitra AK. Ocular drug delivery. AAPS J. 2010;12(3):348–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Alm A, Nilsson SF. Uveoscleral outflow--a review. Exp Eye Res. 2009;88(4):760–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Kang-Mieler JJ, Osswald CR, Mieler WF. Advances in ocular drug delivery: emphasis on the posterior segment. Expert Opin Drug Deliv. 2014;11(10):1647–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Baranowski P, Karolewicz B, Gajda M, Pluta J. Ophthalmic drug dosage forms: characterisation and research methods. Sci World J. 2014;2014:861904.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    FDA. Product-Specific Guidances for Generic Drug Development 2017 [Available from:
  10. 10.
    Choi SH, Lionberger RA. Clinical, pharmacokinetic, and in vitro studies to support bioequivalence of ophthalmic drug products. AAPS J. 2016;18(4):1032–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Kozak D WY. OGD citizen petition consult response memorandum (DRAFT). 2016.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Shen M, Machado SG. Bioequivalence evaluation of sparse sampling pharmacokinetics data using bootstrap resampling method. J Biopharm Stat. 2017;27(2):257–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Blake CR, Lai WW, Edward DP. Racial and ethnic differences in ocular anatomy. Int Ophthalmol Clin. 2003;43(4):9–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Agrahari V, Mandal A, Agrahari V, Trinh HM, Joseph M, Ray A, et al. A comprehensive insight on ocular pharmacokinetics. Drug Deliv Transl Res. 2016;6(6):735–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Wang D, Amoozgar B, Porco T, Wang Z, Lin SC. Ethnic differences in lens parameters measured by ocular biometry in a cataract surgery population. PLoS One. 2017;12(6):e0179836.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Zore M, Harris A, Tobe LA, Siesky B, Januleviciene I, Behzadi J, et al. Generic medications in ophthalmology. Br J Ophthalmol. 2013;97(3):253–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Jonas JB, Iribarren R, Nangia V, Sinha A, Pardhi P, Shukla R, et al. Lens position and age: the Central India eye and medical study. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2015;56(9):5309–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Chen RI, Barbosa DT, Hsu CH, Porco TC, Lin SC. Ethnic differences in trabecular meshwork height by optical coherence tomography. JAMA Ophthalmol. 2015;133(4):437–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Chang SW, Hu FR. Changes in corneal autofluorescence and corneal epithelial barrier function with aging. Cornea. 1993;12(6):493–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Goel M, Picciani RG, Lee RK, Bhattacharya SK. Aqueous humor dynamics: a review. Open Ophthalmol J. 2010;4:52–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Pleyer U, Ursell PG, Rama P. Intraocular pressure effects of common topical steroids for post-cataract inflammation: are they all the same? Ophthalmol Therapy. 2013;2(2):55–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Moss EB, Buys YM, Low SA, Yuen D, Jin YP, Chapman KR, et al. A randomized controlled trial to determine the effect of inhaled corticosteroid on intraocular pressure in open-angle Glaucoma and ocular hypertension: the ICOUGH study. J Glaucoma. 2017;26(2):182–6.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Sheppard JD, Comstock TL, Cavet ME. Impact of the topical ophthalmic corticosteroid Loteprednol Etabonate on intraocular pressure. Adv Ther. 2016;33(4):532–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Roy B, Riley C, Herrin J, Spatz ES, Arora A, Kell KP, et al. Identifying county characteristics associated with resident well-being: a population based study. PLoS One. 2018;13(5):e0196720.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Green SB, Byar DP. The effect of stratified randomization on size and power of statistical tests in clinical trials. J Chronic Dis. 1978;31(6–7):445–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Wellek S, Blettner M. On the proper use of the crossover design in clinical trials: part 18 of a series on evaluation of scientific publications. Dtsch Arztebl Int. 2012;109(15):276–81.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© This is a U.S. government work and its text is not subject to copyright protection in the United States; however, its text may be subject to foreign copyright protection  2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Yoriko Harigaya
    • 1
    Email author
  • Xiaojian Jiang
    • 1
  • Hongling Zhang
    • 1
  • Parthapratim Chandaroy
    • 1
  • Ethan M. Stier
    • 1
  • Yuzhuo Pan
    • 1
  1. 1.Division of Bioequivalence II, Office of Bioequivalence, Office of Generic Drug, Center for Drug Evaluation and ResearchUS Food and Drug AdministrationSilver SpringUSA

Personalised recommendations