Dissolution Testing in Drug Product Development: Workshop Summary Report.

This publication summarizes the proceedings and key outcomes of the first day ("Day 1") of the 3-day workshop on "Dissolution and Translational Modeling Strategies Enabling Patient-Centric Product Development." The overall aims of the workshop were to foster a productive dialog between industry and regulatory agencies and to discuss current strategies toward the development and implementation of clinically relevant dissolution specifications as an integral part of enhanced drug product understanding and effective drug product life-cycle management. The Day 1 podium presentations covered existing challenges and concerns for implementing highly valuable, yet often unique and novel experimental dissolution setups as quality control tools. In addition, several podium presentations highlighted opportunities to replace conventional dissolution testing with surrogate test methods to enable robust drug product and process understanding within the context of quality by design (QbD), new manufacturing technologies, and real-time release testing (RTRT). The topics covered on Day 1 laid the foundation for subsequent discussions which focused on the challenges related to establishing an in vitro-in vivo link and approaches for establishing clinically relevant drug product specifications which are becoming an expectation in regulatory submissions. Clarification of dissolution-related terminology used inconsistently among the scientific community, and the purpose of various testing approaches were key discussion topics of the Day 1 breakout sessions. The outcome of these discussions along with creative ways to overcome challenges related to bridging "exploratory dissolution approaches" with methods suitable for end-product control testing are captured within this report.

Scientific and Regulatory Considerations in Solid Oral Modified Release Drug Product Development.

This review presents scientific and regulatory considerations for the development of solid oral modified release (MR) drug products. It includes a rationale for patient-focused development based on Quality-by-Design (QbD) principles. Product and process understanding of MR products includes identification and risk-based evaluation of critical material attributes (CMAs), critical process parameters (CPPs), and their impact on critical quality attributes (CQAs) that affect the clinical performance. The use of various biopharmaceutics tools that link the CQAs to a predictable and reproducible clinical performance for patient benefit is emphasized. Product and process understanding lead to a more comprehensive control strategy that can maintain product quality through the shelf life and the lifecycle of the drug product. The overall goal is to develop MR products that consistently meet the clinical objectives while mitigating the risks to patients by reducing the probability and increasing the detectability of CQA failures.

Regulatory Perspectives on Strength-Dependent Dissolution Profiles and Biowaiver Approaches for Immediate Release (IR) Oral Tablets in New Drug Applications.

Dissolution profile comparisons are used by the pharmaceutical industry to assess the similarity in the dissolution characteristics of two formulations to decide whether the implemented changes, usually minor/moderate in nature, will have an impact on the in vitro/in vivo performance of the drug product. When similarity testing is applied to support the approval of lower strengths of the same formulation, the traditional approach for dissolution profile comparison is not always applicable for drug products exhibiting strength-dependent dissolution and may lead to incorrect conclusions about product performance. The objective of this article is to describe reasonable biopharmaceutic approaches for developing a biowaiver strategy for low solubility, proportionally similar/non-proportionally similar in composition immediate release drug products that exhibit strength-dependent dissolution profiles. The paths highlighted in the article include (1) approaches to address biowaiver requests, such as the use of multi-unit dissolution testing to account for sink condition differences between the higher and lower strengths; (2) the use of a single- vs. strength-dependent dissolution method; and (3) the use of single- vs. strength-dependent dissolution acceptance criteria. These approaches are cost- and time-effective and can avoid unnecessary bioequivalence studies.

Advancing Product Quality: a Summary of the Inaugural FDA/PQRI Conference.

On September 16 and 17, 2014, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and Product Quality Research Institute (PQRI) inaugurated their Conference on Evolving Product Quality. The Conference is conceived as an annual forum in which scientists from regulatory agencies, industry, and academia may exchange viewpoints and work together to advance pharmaceutical quality. This Conference Summary Report highlights key topics of this conference, including (1) risk-based approaches to pharmaceutical development, manufacturing, regulatory assessment, and post-approval changes; (2) FDA-proposed quality metrics for products, facilities, and quality management systems; (3) performance-based quality assessment and clinically relevant specifications; (4) recent developments and implementation of continuous manufacturing processes, question-based review, and European Medicines Agency (EMA)-FDA pilot for Quality-by-Design (QbD) applications; and (5) breakthrough therapies, biosimilars, and international harmonization, focusing on ICH M7 and Q3D guidelines. The second FDA/PQRI conference on advancing product quality is planned for October 5-7, 2015.

FDA approval summary: vemurafenib for treatment of unresectable or metastatic melanoma with the BRAFV600E mutation.

On August 17, 2011, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved vemurafenib tablets (Zelboraf, Hoffmann-LaRoche Inc.) for the treatment of patients with unresectable or metastatic melanoma with the BRAF(V600E) mutation as detected by an FDA-approved test. The cobas 4800 BRAF V600 Mutation Test (Roche Molecular Systems, Inc.) was approved concurrently. An international, multicenter, randomized, open-label trial in 675 previously untreated patients with BRAF(V600E) mutation-positive unresectable or metastatic melanoma allocated 337 patients to receive vemurafenib, 960 mg orally twice daily, and 338 patients to receive dacarbazine, 1,000 mg/m(2) intravenously every 3 weeks. Overall survival was significantly improved in patients receiving vemurafenib [HR, 0.44; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.33-0.59; P < 0.0001]. Progression-free survival was also significantly improved in patients receiving vemurafenib (HR, 0.26; 95% CI, 0.20-0.33; P < 0.0001). Overall response rates were 48.4% and 5.5% in the vemurafenib and dacarbazine arms, respectively. The most common adverse reactions (≥30%) in patients treated with vemurafenib were arthralgia, rash, alopecia, fatigue, photosensitivity reaction, and nausea. Cutaneous squamous cell carcinomas or keratoacanthomas were detected in approximately 24% of patients treated with vemurafenib. Other adverse reactions included hypersensitivity, Stevens-Johnson syndrome, toxic epidermal necrolysis, uveitis, QT prolongation, and liver enzyme laboratory abnormalities.

FDA approval: ado-trastuzumab emtansine for the treatment of patients with HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer.

On February 22, 2013, the FDA licensed ado-trastuzumab emtansine (Kadcyla; Genentech, Inc.) for use as a single agent for the treatment of patients with human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-positive metastatic breast cancer (MBC) who previously received trastuzumab and a taxane, separately or in combination. The clinical basis for licensure was a phase III trial in 991 patients with HER2-positive MBC that randomly allocated patients to receive ado-trastuzumab emtansine (n=495) or lapatinib in combination with capecitabine (n=496). The coprimary endpoints were progression-free survival (PFS) based on tumor assessments by an independent review committee and overall survival (OS). Statistically significant improvements in PFS and OS were observed in patients receiving ado-trastuzumab emtansine compared with patients receiving lapatinib plus capecitabine [difference in PFS medians of 3.2 months, HR, 0.65 (95% confidence interval, CI, 0.55-0.77), P<0.0001 and difference in OS medians of 5.8 months, HR, 0.68 (95% CI, 0.55-0.85), P=0.0006]. The most common adverse reactions in patients receiving ado-trastuzumab emtansine were fatigue, nausea, musculoskeletal pain, thrombocytopenia, headache, increased aminotransferase levels, and constipation. Other significant adverse reactions included hepatobiliary disorders and left ventricular dysfunction. Given the PFS and OS results, the benefit-risk profile was considered favorable.

U.S. Food and Drug Administration approval: vismodegib for recurrent, locally advanced, or metastatic basal cell carcinoma.

The data and regulatory considerations leading to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) January 30, 2012 approval of Erivedge (vismodegib) capsules for the treatment of patients with recurrent, locally advanced, or metastatic basal cell carcinoma (BCC) are described. The FDA's approval decision was based primarily on the results observed in a single-arm, parallel cohort, international trial of vismodegib, administered orally at 150 mg daily until disease progression, in patients with pathologically confirmed, recurrent, locally advanced basal cell carcinoma (laBCC) or metastatic basal cell carcinoma (mBCC). An independent review committee confirmed an overall response rate (ORR) of 30.3% [95% confidence interval (CI): 15.6-48.2] in 33 patients with mBCC and an ORR of 42.9% (95% CI: 30.5-56.0) in 63 patients with laBCC; median response durations were 7.6 months and 7.6 months for patients with mBCC and laBCC, respectively. The most common adverse reactions were muscle spasms, alopecia, dysgeusia, weight loss, fatigue, nausea, diarrhea, decreased appetite, constipation, cough, arthralgias, vomiting, headache, ageusia, insomnia, and upper respiratory tract infection. Animal toxicology studies confirmed that vismodegib is a potent teratogenic agent. Approval was based on durable objective tumor responses supported by knowledge of the pathologic role of Hedgehog signaling in BCC and acceptable toxicity in a population without effective alternative therapies.

Vandetanib for the treatment of symptomatic or progressive medullary thyroid cancer in patients with unresectable locally advanced or metastatic disease: U.S. Food and Drug Administration drug approval summary.

On April 6, 2011, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved vandetanib (Caprelsa tablets; AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals LP) for the treatment of symptomatic or progressive medullary thyroid cancer in patients with unresectable, locally advanced, or metastatic disease. Vandetanib is the first drug approved for this indication, and this article focuses on the basis of approval. Approval was based on the results of a double-blind trial conducted in patients with medullary thyroid carcinoma. Patients were randomized 2:1 to vandetanib, 300 mg/d orally (n = 231), or to placebo (n = 100). The primary objective was demonstration of improvement in progression-free survival (PFS) with vandetanib compared with placebo. Other endpoints included evaluation of overall survival and objective response rate. The PFS analysis showed a marked improvement for patients randomized to vandetanib (hazard ratio = 0.35; 95% confidence interval, 0.24-0.53; P < 0.0001). The objective response rate for the vandetanib arm was 44% compared with 1% for the placebo arm. The most common grade 3 and 4 toxicities (>5%) were diarrhea and/or colitis, hypertension and hypertensive crisis, fatigue, hypocalcemia, rash, and corrected QT interval (QTc) prolongation. This approval was based on a statistically significant and clinically meaningful improvement in PFS. Given the toxicity profile, which includes prolongation of the QT interval and sudden death, only prescribers and pharmacies certified through the vandetanib Risk Evaluation Mitigation Strategy Program are able to prescribe and dispense vandetanib. Treatment-related risks should be taken into account when considering the use of vandetanib in patients with indolent, asymptomatic, or slowly progressing disease.

FDA review summary: Mozobil in combination with granulocyte colony-stimulating factor to mobilize hematopoietic stem cells to the peripheral blood for collection and subsequent autologous transplantation.

PURPOSE: On December 15, 2008, the US Food and Drug Administration approved plerixafor (Mozobil; Genzyme Corp.), a new small-molecule inhibitor of the CXCR4 chemokine receptor, for use in combination with granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) to mobilize hematopoietic stem cells (HSC) to the peripheral blood for collection and subsequent autologous transplantation in patients with non-Hodgkin's lymphoma (NHL) and multiple myeloma (MM). This summary reviews the database supporting this approval. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: The safety and efficacy of plerixafor were demonstrated by 2 multicenter, randomized, placebo-controlled studies in patients with NHL and MM who were eligible for autologous HSC transplantation. The primary efficacy end points were the collection of > or = 5 x 10(6) CD34+ cells/kg from the peripheral blood in 4 or fewer apheresis sessions in patients with NHL or > or = 6 x 10(6) CD34+ cells/kg from the peripheral blood in 2 or fewer apheresis sessions in patients with MM. RESULTS: The 2 randomized studies combined enrolled 600 patients (298 with NHL and 302 with MM). Fifty-nine percent of patients with NHL who were mobilized with G-CSF and plerixafor had peripheral blood HSC collections of > or = 5 x 10(6) CD34+ cells/kg in 4 or fewer apheresis sessions, compared with 20% of patients with NHL who were mobilized with G-CSF and placebo (p < 0.001). Seventy-two percent of patients with MM who were mobilized with Mozobil and G-CSF had peripheral blood HSC collections of > or = 6 x 10(6) CD34+ cells/kg in 2 or fewer apheresis sessions, compared with 34% of patients with MM who were mobilized with placebo and G-CSF (p < 0.001). Common adverse reactions included diarrhea, nausea, vomiting, flatulence, injection site reactions, fatigue, arthralgia, headache, dizziness, and insomnia. CONCLUSIONS: This report describes the Food and Drug Administration review supporting the approval of plerixafor.