The bioequivalence study design recommendations for immediate-release solid oral dosage forms in the international pharmaceutical regulators programme participating regulators and organisations: differences and commonalities.

Bioequivalence (BE) studies are considered the standard for demonstrating that the performance of a generic drug product in the human body is sufficiently similar to that of its comparator product. The objective of this article is to describe the recommendations from participating Bioequivalence Working Group for Generics (BEWGG) members of the International Pharmaceutical Regulators Programme (IPRP) regarding the conduct and acceptance criteria for BE studies of immediate release solid oral dosage forms. A survey was conducted among BEWGG members regarding their BE recommendations and requirements related to study subjects, study design, sample size, single or multiple dose administration, study conditions (fasting or fed), analyte to be measured, selection of product strength, drug content, handling of endogenous substances, BE acceptance criteria, and additional design aspects. All members prefer conducting single dose cross-over designed studies in healthy subjects with a minimum of 12 subjects and utilizing the parent drug data to assess BE. However, differences emerged among the members when the drug's pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics become more complex, such that the study design (e.g., fasting versus fed conditions) and BE acceptance criteria (e.g., highly variable drugs, narrow therapeutic index drugs) may be affected. The survey results and discussions were shared with the ICH M13 Expert Working Group (EWG) and played an important role in identifying and analyzing gaps during the harmonization process. The draft ICH M13A guideline developed by the M13 EWG was endorsed by ICH on 20 December 2022, under Step 2.

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.

Chiral bioanalytical methods in bioequivalence studies of intravenous vs. oral formulations of ibuprofen.

According to the Ibuprofen Product-Specific Bioequivalence Guidance of the European Medicines Agency, achiral bioanalytical methods are considered acceptable for demonstration of bioequivalence of ibuprofen-containing products. The aim of this investigation is to compare the bioequivalence outcomes obtained with individual R and S ibuprofen enantiomers and the sum of both enantiomers from bioequivalence studies in which new intravenous ibuprofen products were compared with oral ibuprofen products. Bioequivalence was assessed for S and R enantiomers of ibuprofen and the sum of both enantiomers, which was calculated to represent the results that would have been obtained with an achiral assay. The infusion rates of 15, 20, and 30 minutes modify the maximum concentration (Cmax ) of the intravenous administrations. In contrast, the time when the maximum concentration is observed (Tmax ) was insensitive to detect differences in input rate within this range of infusion times. The eutomer S-ibuprofen is the least sensitive analyte to detect differences in input rate; therefore, the regulatory acceptance of achiral bioanalytical methods for ibuprofen bioequivalence studies is justified because the sum of both enantiomers is more discriminative than the chiral methods where only the eutomer is used for regulatory decisions.

Effect of enantiomerism on the bioequivalence of a new ibuprofen 600-mg tablet formulation obtained by roller compaction.

The bioequivalence of a new ibuprofen 600-mg film-coated tablet obtained by roller compaction was studied in a crossover study with 22 healthy volunteers. Bioequivalence was analyzed based on (a) the S-enantiomer, (b) the R-enantiomer, and (c) the sum of both enantiomers (representing the results of an achiral assay). The bioequivalence conclusion for ibuprofen products should be based not only on AUC and Cmax but also on tmax since tmax is related to the onset of action. However, it is not possible to ensure if bioequivalence has been demonstrated for tmax as regulators have not defined the acceptance range for the difference between medians of tmax in those cases, where tmax is clinically relevant. In this study, it was possible to conclude bioequivalence for tmax based on S-ibuprofen, though this conclusion might be questioned if the decision is based on R-ibuprofen or the achiral method.

Adjusted indirect comparisons to assess bioequivalence between generic clopidogrel products in Serbia.

AIMS: Generic products can be regarded as therapeutically equivalent and switchable with the reference product. However, switchability between generics is unknown, as direct comparisons between generics are not performed. The aim of this study was to investigate the bioequivalence between generic clopidogrel products by means of adjusted indirect comparisons (AICs). METHODS: AICs were conducted to assess bioequivalence between 4 generic clopidogrel products that are authorised in Serbia. Generics are considered equivalent to the reference if the 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the ratios test/reference of the maximum concentration (Cmax ) and area under the curve up to the last measurable concentration (AUC0-t ) fall within the acceptance range 80.00-125.00%. However, for AICs between generics, the Canadian acceptance criterion for Cmax was employed, where only the point estimate of Cmax needs to be within 80.00-125.00%. RESULTS: The 90% CIs of the AICs demonstrated bioequivalence within 80.00-125.00% for all AUC0-t comparisons. The point estimates of Cmax in all AICs were also within this range. CONCLUSION: This study demonstrates that the bioavailability of these 4 generic clopidogrel products authorised in Serbia is very similar. Despite the limited power of AICs, bioequivalence was demonstrated for all 90% CIs of AUC0-t and all 90% CIs of Cmax comparisons were within or very close to the acceptance range, being able to comply with the acceptance criterion employed in Canada for Cmax . Therefore, these 4 generic clopidogrel products authorised in Serbia can be considered switchable with each other in clinical practice based on the adjusted indirect comparisons.

Sex-by-formulation interaction in bioequivalence trials with transdermal patches.

PURPOSE: The existence of a sex-by-formulation interaction in bioequivalence studies implies that the bioequivalence results (i.e., the test/reference ratio of the pharmacokinetic parameters) obtained in one sex are not similar to those obtained in the other sex. Therefore, results obtained in studies including only males may not be representative of the results obtained in females and vice versa. The best evidence of the existence of a sex-by-formulation interaction has been obtained from a study conducted with transdermal patches. This observation might be caused by the different characteristics of the skin of males and females. The purpose of this work is to investigate the existence of a sex-by-formulation interaction in all bioequivalence studies of transdermal patches submitted to the Spanish Agency for Medicines between 2010 and 2016. METHODS: Only five different products (Buprenorphine-1, Fentantyl-1, Fentanyl-2, Rivastigmine-1 and Rivastigmine-2) that were submitted for registration included nine bioequivalence studies conducted in males and females. As single dose and multiple dose studies are required for registration of transdermal patches in the European Union, more than one study may be available to confirm the existence of a sex-by-formulation interaction. RESULTS: A sex-by-formulation interaction is suggested in six out of 27 datasets (22%), corresponding to two products, and it is statistically significant in three of them (11%). CONCLUSIONS: The sex-by-formulation interaction detected in some pharmacokinetic parameters of some studies is excluded when the study is repeated, which shows that these results are not reproducible. There is no evidence to require bioequivalence demonstration for transdermal patches in males and females separately.

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.

A Survey of the Regulatory Requirements for the Acceptance of Foreign Comparator Products by Participating Regulators and Organizations of the International Generic Drug Regulators Programme.

The acceptance of foreign comparator products is the most limiting factor for the development and regulatory assessment of generic medicines marketed globally. Bioequivalence studies have to be repeated with the local comparator products of each jurisdiction because it is unknown if the comparators of the different countries are the same product, with the consequent duplication of efforts by regulators and industry alike. The regulatory requirements on the acceptability of foreign comparator products of oral dosage forms differ between countries participating in the Bioequivalence Working Group for Generics of the International Pharmaceutical Regulators Programme. Brazil, Colombia, the European Union member States, Japan, Mexico, South Korea and the United States only accept bioequivalence studies with their local comparator. In contrast, Australia, Canada, New Zealand, Singapore, South Africa, Switzerland and Taiwan accept studies with foreign comparators under certain conditions. Canada limits its use to highly soluble drugs with a wide therapeutic range in immediate release products. Australia requires a comparison of the quantitative composition. In contrast, there are fewer restrictions on the acceptance of foreign comparators in New Zealand, Singapore, South Africa, Switzerland and Taiwan. For the WHO Prequalification of Medicines and for developing generics of the essential medicines the WHO lists comparators from different countries. In conclusion, there is currently no consensus amongst regulators on the acceptability of foreign comparator products.

In Vitro Dissolution as a Tool for Formulation Selection: Telmisartan Two-Step IVIVC.

The purpose of this investigation was to develop an exploratory two-step level A IVIVC for three telmisartan oral immediate release formulations, the reference product Micardis, and two generic formulations (X1 and X2). Correlation was validated with a third test formulation, Y1. Experimental solubility and permeability data were obtained to confirm that telmisartan is a class II compound under the Biopharmaceutic Classification System. Bioequivalence (BE) studies plasma profiles were combined using a previously published reference scaling procedure. X2 demonstrated in vivo BE, while X1 and Y1 failed to show BE due to the lower boundary of the 90% confidence interval for Cmax being outside the acceptance limits. Average plasma profiles were deconvoluted by the Loo-Riegelman method to obtain the oral fractions absorbed ( fa). Fractions dissolved ( fdiss) were obtained in several conditions in USP II and USP IV apparatus, and later, the results were compared in order to find the most biopredictive model, calculating the f2 similarity factor. The apparatus and conditions showing the same rank order than in vivo data were selected for further refinement of conditions. A Levy plot was constructed to estimate the time scaling factor and to make both processes, dissolution and absorption, superimposable. The in vitro dissolution experiment that reflected more accurately the in vivo behavior of the different formulations of telmisartan employed the USP IV dissolution apparatus and a dissolution environment with a flow rate of 8 mL/min and a three-step pH change, from 1.2 to 4.5 and 6.8, with a 0.05% of Tween 80. Thus, these conditions gave rise to a biopredictive dissolution test. This new model is able to predict the formulation differences in dissolution that were previously observed in vivo, which could be used as a risk-analysis tool for formulation selection in future bioequivalence trials.

Evaluation of sex-by-formulation interaction in bioequivalence studies of efavirenz tablets.

AIMS: The existence of a sex-by-formulation interaction in bioequivalence studies implies that the bioequivalence results (i.e., the test/reference ratio of the pharmacokinetic parameters) obtained in one sex are not similar to those obtained in the other sex. Therefore, results obtained in studies including only males would not be representative of the results that would have been obtained in females and vice versa. Recently, a sex-by-formulation interaction has been reported in a study for efavirenz tablets. The purpose of this paper is to investigate whether a sex-by-formulation interaction is actually observed in the bioequivalence studies conducted with efavirenz tablets. METHODS: The existence of sex-by-formulation interaction was investigated in the two studies conducted in our centre, where the same test and reference products were investigated in a pilot study with 12 subjects and a pivotal study with 36 subjects. RESULTS: In the pilot study, the point estimates for the test/reference ratio of geometrics means of Cmax in females and males were more than 20% different (95.42% vs.79.38%, i.e., 120.21%), but in a subsequent pivotal study the difference was less than 2% (111.14% vs. 109.98%, i.e., 101.66%). CONCLUSIONS: A sex-by-formulation interaction is suggested in the study with a small sample size, but it disappears when the study is repeated with a larger sample size. In conclusion, the analysis of subgroups should be conducted with caution when the size of the subgroups is not powered to show bioequivalence. There seems to be no reason to require bioequivalence studies for efavirenz in both sexes.

A Survey of the Regulatory Requirements for BCS-Based Biowaivers for Solid Oral Dosage Forms by Participating Regulators and Organisations of the International Generic Drug Regulators Programme.

PURPOSE: The Biopharmaceutics Classification System (BCS) based biowaiver is a scientific model which enables the substitution of in vivo bioequivalence studies with in vitro data as evidence of therapeutic equivalence subject to certain conditions. Despite being based on the same principles, BCS-based biowaivers are interpreted and regulated differently among international regulatory agencies. In this survey, the Bioequivalence Working Group (BEWG) of the International Generic Drug Regulators Programme (IGDRP) compared the criteria for BCS-based biowaivers applied by the participating regulators and organisations. METHODS: Differences and similarities regarding solubility, permeability, dissolution, excipients and fixed-dose combination products, were identified and compared in a detailed survey of each participant's criteria for BCS-based biowaivers. These criteria were determined based upon the participants' respective regulatory guidance documents, policies and practices. RESULTS: This review has, with the exception of two participants who do not accept BCS-based biowaivers, revealed that most IGDRP participants interpret the BCS principles and conditions similarly but notable differences exist in the application of these principles.  Conclusion: Although many similarities exist, this review identifies several opportunities for greater convergence of regulatory requirements amongst the surveyed jurisdictions. This article is open to POST-PUBLICATION REVIEW. Registered readers (see "For Readers") may comment by clicking on ABSTRACT on the issue's contents page.

Impact of Chiral Bioanalytical Methods on the Bioequivalence of Ibuprofen Products Containing Ibuprofen Lysinate and Ibuprofen Base.

The purpose was to assess the impact of the use of a chiral bioanalytical method on the conclusions of a bioequivalence study that compared two ibuprofen suspensions with different rates of absorption. A comparison of the conclusion of bioequivalence between a chiral method and an achiral approach was made. Plasma concentrations of R-ibuprofen and S-ibuprofen were determined using a chiral bioanalytical method; bioequivalence was tested for R-ibuprofen and for S-ibuprofen separately and for the sum of both enantiomers as an approach for an achiral bioanalytical method. The 90% confidence interval (90% CI) that would have been obtained with an achiral bioanalytical method (90% CI: Cmax: 117.69-134.46; AUC0 (t) : 104.75-114.45) would have precluded the conclusion of bioequivalence. This conclusion cannot be generalized to the active enantiomer (90% CI: Cmax : 103.36-118.38; AUC0 (t) : 96.52-103.12), for which bioequivalence can be concluded, and/or the distomer (90% CI: Cmax : 132.97-151.33; AUC0 (t) : 115.91-135.77) for which a larger difference was observed. Chiral bioanalytical methods should be required when 1) the enantiomers exhibit different pharmacodynamics and 2) the exposure (AUC or Cmax ) ratio of enantiomers is modified by a difference in the rate of absorption. Furthermore, the bioequivalence conclusion should be based on all enantiomers, since the distomer(s) might not be completely inert, in contrast to what is required in the current regulatory guidelines. In those cases where it is unknown if the ratio between enantiomers is modified by changing the rate of absorption, chiral bioanalytical methods should be employed unless enantiomers exhibit the same pharmacodynamics. Chirality 28:429-433, 2016. © 2016 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

About the equivalence between different batches of a glycopeptide drug.

CONTEXT: Teicoplanin is a glycopeptide antibiotic consisting of a combination of different active components. Clinical equivalence between different batches of this drug is not guaranteed by the present pharmacopeial specification of chemical composition based on an HPLC chromatogram. OBJECTIVE: To test a modification of this specification and to evaluate independent compositions recently published in the literature. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The expectable area under the plasma curve of each batch has been estimated based on its chemical composition as described in a former paper. Batch-comparisons are based on ratios between the area of the test batch and the area of a reference. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION: The modification of this specification recently proposed by the European Medicines Agency (EMA) has been tested confirming its goodness. A new acceptance range of AUC variation, rounding -10% to +15%, has been obtained. It is narrower than the current interval of the pharmacopeial specification. Concerning the generic batches that have been studied, the majority of differences with the reference is lower than ±10%. Variations in the compositions of the reference product have been observed to influence the results and a control criteria are proposed. CONCLUSION: The variability of the pharmacokinetic performance of teicoplanin can be better controlled with this new proposal of composition specification given by EMA.

Agitation Rate and Time for Complete Dissolution in BCS Biowaivers Based on Investigation of a BCS Biowaiver for Dexketoprofen Tablets.

The objective of the present work is to investigate the validity of the existing requirements for BCS biowaivers of immediate release products containing a class I drug in relation to the agitation rate (50 or 75 rpm in the paddle apparatus) and the time limit for complete dissolution (30 min) in the current biowaivers in vitro dissolution tests. Further, the possibility of extensions will be examined since it has been proposed that the time limit for complete dissolution should be revised to 60 min, and also, if cone formation occurs with apparatus 2 at 50 rpm, then a higher agitation rate is acceptable to eliminate it. The development of four generic dexketoprofen immediate release tablets is described. Dexketoprofen is the eutomer of ketoprofen. According to the BCS, dexketoprofen is a class I drug. Three out of the four products failed to show bioequivalence for Cmax in the initial bioequivalence study conducted with the product despite similar but nonrapid dissolution profiles at 50 rpm in the paddle apparatus, or similar and very rapid dissolution profiles at 75 rpm. In conclusion, these data indicate that BCS biowaivers for class I drugs should be granted only when dissolution with the paddle apparatus is complete in 30 min at 50 rpm. The time limit for complete dissolution should not be extended to 60 min. Furthermore, the agitation rate should not be increased to 75 rpm, even in the case of a coning effect.

Investigating the Discriminatory Power of BCS-Biowaiver in Vitro Methodology to Detect Bioavailability Differences between Immediate Release Products Containing a Class I Drug.

The purpose of this work is to investigate the discriminatory power of the Biopharmaceutics Classification System (BCS)-biowaiver in vitro methodology, i.e., to investigate if a BCS-biowaiver approach would have detected the Cmax differences observed between two zolpidem tablets and to identify the cause of the in vivo difference. Several dissolution conditions were tested with three zolpidem formulations: the reference (Stilnox), a bioequivalent formulation (BE), and a nonbioequivalent formulation (N-BE). Zolpidem is highly soluble at pH 1.2, 4.5, and 6.8. Its permeability in Caco-2 cells is higher than that of metoprolol and its transport mechanism is passive diffusion. None of the excipients (alone or in combination) showed any effect on permeability. All formulations dissolved more than 85% in 15 min in the paddle apparatus at 50 rpm in all dissolution media. However, at 30 rpm the nonbioequivalent formulation exhibited a slower dissolution rate. A slower gastric emptying rate was also observed in rats for the nonbioequivalent formulation. A slower disintegration and dissolution or a delay in gastric emptying might explain the Cmax infra-bioavailability for a highly permeable drug with short half-life. The BCS-biowaiver approach would have declared bioequivalence, although the in vivo study was not conclusive but detected a 14% mean difference in Cmax that precluded the bioequivalence demonstration. Nonetheless, these findings suggest that a slower dissolution rate is more discriminatory and that rotation speeds higher than 50 rpm should not be used in BCS-biowaivers, even if a coning effect occurs.

Influence of point estimates and study power of bioequivalence studies on establishing bioequivalence between generics by adjusted indirect comparisons.

PURPOSE: Adjusted indirect comparisons can be used to investigate bioequivalence between generic products that are bioequivalent with a common reference product. In previous work with generic tuberculosis medicines prequalified by the WHO, it was observed that although indirect comparisons are an effective approach for confirming the interchangeability of generics, the approach is subject to less precision than direct comparisons. The objective of this investigation was to explore this by examining the influence of point estimates and power of bioequivalence studies versus the reference on the ability to show equivalence in indirect comparisons. METHODS: Power was considered as a determining factor instead of variability and sample size, because sample size is calculated based on variability and desired power. Scenarios were computed combining a range of point estimate differences (0-14 %) and statistical power of the studies (50-99.99 %). RESULTS: The indirect comparisons could conclude equivalence between generics only when (a) point estimate differences between generics were low (≤ 5.5 %) for any sufficiently powered study (> 80 %), or (b) the differences were large (but less than 14 %) and both bioequivalence studies were overpowered (e.g., 10 % difference and power ≥ 95 %). CONCLUSIONS: In summary, the ability to demonstrate interchangeability between generics is dependent not only on the real differences between the products but also on the design of the original generic vs. reference bioequivalence studies being combined, as earmarked by their respective power.

Composition specification of teicoplanin based on its estimated relative bioavailability.

CONTEXT: Teicoplanin is a fermentative antibiotic consisting of several active components that contribute similarly to the antibacterial activity, but exhibit different pharmacokinetic properties. Differences in systemic exposure between batches of teicoplanin are possible within pharmacopeial specifications as the proportion of subcomponents may vary from batch to batch. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this paper is to study the possible modification of the present pharmacopeial specification for teicoplanin composition to ensure an a priori pharmacokinetic equivalence between all pharmacopoeial-compliant batches. METHODS: The expectable whole Area Under the Curve (AUC) of plasma levels of teicoplanin was predicted for different experimental batches and also for the theoretical extreme batches within pharmacopeial specifications. Calculations were done based on the AUC of each teicoplanin active subcomponent. Subsequently, the equivalence between a generic teicoplanin and a reference drug product was investigated by means of the ratio of AUCs. RESULTS: Batches under study, complying with current pharmacopoeial specifications, showed a maximum predicted difference in AUC slightly larger than 40%. The observed variability in teicoplanin compositions surpasses the conventional ±5% specification used for drugs obtained by chemical synthesis, but no 5% differences have been observed for any of the AUC means of the reference product when compared with the whole pooled data. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION: Alternative specifications of actives composition can be defined to ensure that all batches complying with the pharmacopoeia are inside ±10% interval between them.