Advertisement

Chapter 32: A Science and Risk-Based Approach to Bridging Drug-Device Combination Products

  • John K. TownsEmail author
Chapter
  • 82 Downloads
Part of the AAPS Advances in the Pharmaceutical Sciences Series book series (AAPS, volume 35)

Abstract

Biopharmaceuticals are most often administered to patients subcutaneously by way of a device delivery system, with these two components – biopharmaceutical and device – constituting the combination product. Combination products that employ different device components for the same drug or biologic and those that employ the same device component across different drugs and biologics necessitate a strong scientific comparability bridge be established. The science-based decision strategies follow a risk-based approach in the generation of needed bridging data and/or the leveraging of prior experience and knowledge for an established drug or device component. An impact analysis has proven a useful method in determining the “right study tool” is applied in generating sufficient comparability data to demonstrate bridging to the to-be-marketed combination product. The approaches and considerations described in this chapter are applicable to all phases of product life cycle: early-stage development, pivotal clinical studies, product launch, and post-approval change management.

Keywords

Bridging Comparability Combination products Human factors 

Notes

Acknowledgement

The author would like to thank the following individuals for their insights and technical input into the considerations and study requirements for bridging of biopharmaceutical combination products: Sherri Biondi, Lori de los Reyes, Ken Kulmatycki, Jocelyn Leu, Jason Lipman, Doug Mead, Suzette Roan, and Hal Yeager.

References

  1. 1.
    U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Guidance for industry and FDA staff: technical considerations for pen, jet, and related injectors intended for use with drugs and biological products. June 2013.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Towns J, Biondi S, de los Reyes L, Kulmatycki K, Leichter L, Leu J, Lipman J, McGowan R, Mead D, Picci M, Roan S, Skoug J. RAPS workshop proceedings: comparability bridging studies for combination products, RAPS Focus. 23 Oct 2018.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Li Z, Easton R. Practical considerations in clinical strategy to support the development of injectable drug-device combination products for biologics. mAbs J. 2018;10(1):18–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Guidance for Industry. Bioavailability and bioequivalence studies submitted in NDAs or INDs – general considerations. 17 Mar 2014.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    ISO/CD 20069. Change assessment of devices intended for administration of medicinal products. 2018. https://www.iso.org/standard/66945.html.
  6. 6.
    ICH harmonised tripartite guideline stability testing of new drug substances and products Q1A(R2) CPMP/ICH/2736/99. Jan 2003.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Volume 4. EU guidelines for good manufacturing practice for medicinal products for human and veterinary use, part 1 Chapter 6: Quality control. 28 Mar 2014.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    EU MDR. Regulation (EU) 2017/745 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 April 2017 on medical devices, amending Directive 2001/83/EC, Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 and Regulation (EC) No 1223/2009 and repealing Council Directives 90/385/EEC and 93/42/EEC.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Medicinal Product Directive (MPD). Directive 2001/83/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 November 2001 on the community code relating to medicinal products for human use.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    EBE. EBE-EFPIA reflection paper: an industry perspective on article 117 of the EU medical devices regulation and the impact on how medicines are assessed. 12 July 2018.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    ISO 13485:2016. Medical devices – quality management systems – requirements for regulatory purposes. 2016.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    EMA. Note for guidance on the investigation of bioavailability and bioequivalence. CPMP/EWP/QWP/1401/98. Dec 2000. http://www.ema.europa.eu/docs/en_GB/document_library/Scientific_guideline/2009/09/WC500003519.pdf.
  13. 13.
    CFR 21. Chapter I – Food and Drug Administration Department of Health and Human Services, subchapter H – Medical devices, Part 820 – Quality system regulation, subpart C – Design controls Sec. 820.30 Design controls. Revised Apr 2018.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Draft guidance for industry and FDA staff: rheumatoid arthritis: developing drug products for treatment. May 2013.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Hawker G, Mian S, Kendzerska T, French M. Measures of adult pain. Arthritis Care Res. 2011;63(S11):S240–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Guidance for industry and FDA staff: applying human factors and usability engineering to optimize medical device design. Feb 2016. https://www.fda.gov/downloads/medicaldevices/…/ucm259760.pdf.
  17. 17.
    U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Guidance for industry and FDA staff: medical device use-safety: incorporating human factors engineering into risk management. July 2000.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Draft guidance for industry and FDA staff: human factors studies and related clinical study considerations in combination product design and development. Feb 2016.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Draft guidance for industry and FDA staff: contents of a complete submission for threshold analyses and human factors submissions to drug and biologic applications. Sept 2018.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© American Association of Pharmaceutical Scientists 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Eli Lilly and Company, Lilly Corporate CenterIndianapolisUSA

Personalised recommendations