RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: This article presents a strategy that a Drug Delivery Device Developer (DDDD) has adopted to support Abbreviated New Drug Application (ANDA) submissions of drug-device combination products. As per the related FDA guidance, a threshold analysis should be compiled. If 'other differences' between the Reference Listed Drug (RLD) and the generic drug devices are identified, a Comparative Use Human Factors (CUHF) study may be requested. METHODS: The DDDD performed task analysis and physical comparison to assess the pen injector design differences. Then, a formative CUHF study with 25 participants simulating injections using both RLD and the generic pen injectors was conducted. RESULTS: After each participant completed four simulated injections, similar type and rates of use error between the RLD (0.70) and generic (0.68) pen injectors were observed. CONCLUSION: DDDDs can support pharmaceutical companies in the ANDA submission strategy of their drug-device combination product by initiating comparative task analysis and physical comparison of the device as inputs for the threshold analysis. If 'other differences' are identified, a formative CUHF study can be performed. As shown in our case study, this approach can be leveraged to support the sample size calculation and non-inferiority margin determination for a CUHF study with the final combination product.