A Survey of the Criteria Used for the Selection of Alternative Comparator Products by Participating Regulators and Organizations of the International Pharmaceutical Regulators Programme.

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.

Requirements for Additional Strength Biowaivers for Modified Release Solid Oral Dosage Forms in International Pharmaceutical Regulators Programme Participating Regulators and Organisations: Differences and Commonalities.

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.

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.

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.

Current Regulation for Bioequivalence Evaluations of Generic Ophthalmic Dosage Forms in Japan.

In Japan, the revised version of bioequivalence (BE) evaluations for generic drug products was made available in 2012; however, the scope of this guideline is mainly oral solid dosage forms. Other dosage forms have to be discussed regarding how to evaluate BE by applicants and regulators during consultation meetings or the review process. Recently, there has been an increase in developing generic drug products in various dosage forms in Japan. Therefore, the Pharmaceuticals and Medical Devices Agency (PMDA) must strengthen their efforts to establish methodologies for BE evaluations for various dosage forms, including those of ophthalmic drugs. In 2016, the Japanese Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare (MHLW) issued "The basic principles of bioequivalence evaluations of generic ophthalmic aqueous solutions." This document presents recommendations for clinical endpoint BE studies or biowaiver options to evaluate the BE of generic ophthalmic aqueous solutions. However, this document has brought other issues to the forefront, such as the lack of feasibility of human BE studies for certain indications. Therefore, the PMDA, Japan Ophthalmic Pharmaceutical Manufacturer's Association, and BE experts discussed these issues for 2 years, which led to an update by MHLW in 2018 entitled "The basic principles of bioequivalence evaluations of generic ophthalmic dosage forms." This document describes methodologies for evaluating the BE of ophthalmic dosage forms including suspensions. This article introduces recently approved generic products of ophthalmic dosage forms in Japan, the basic principle of which was issued in 2018, and compares the BE evaluations between the PMDA and U.S. Food and Drug Administration.

First approval of generic dry powder inhaler drug products in Japan.

The Japanese Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare (MHLW) published the basic principles of bioequivalence evaluations for generic dry powder inhaler (DPI) drug products in March 2016. The basic principles were formulated to promote the development of effective and safe generic DPI drugs. Based on this document, the Pharmaceuticals and Medical Devices Agency (PMDA) advises generic companies on effective development through consultation meetings. The PMDA generally requires data from in vitro tests, pharmacokinetic studies, and pharmacodynamic or clinical endpoint studies for generic drug development. The MHLW approved the first generic version of the Symbicort Turbuhaler in 30- and 60-dose pack sizes in February 2019. This article presents the concrete data on the first approval of generic DPI drug products based on public information. Graphical abstract.

Current Understanding of the Equivalence Evaluations for In Vitro Tests on Generic Dry Powder Inhaler Drug Products in Japan.

The Japanese Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare issued the basic principles for bioequivalence evaluations of generic dry powder inhaler (DPI) drug products in 2016. This document presents the recommendations of the methodology for the effective development of generic DPI drug products. Based on this document, the Pharmaceuticals and Medical Devices Agency (PMDA) advises the efficient development in the consultation meeting with generic companies. The PMDA generally requires the data of in vitro tests, pharmacokinetics studies, and clinical endpoint studies for generic development. In vitro tests play a critical role in the development of the generic versions because these tests are used to predict the efficacy and safety of other populations on whom clinical endpoint studies have not been conducted. We are aware that some points need further discussion, such as the recommendations for at least four groups of stages (group 1: the induction port and pre-separator, group 2: greater than 5 µm, group 3: ranging from 3 to 5 µm, group 4: ranging from 0.8 to 3 µm) for in vitro tests of the generic DPI products. This article shows the current understanding and recommendations with respect to in vitro tests, particularly for at least four groups of stages.

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.

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.