Erratum: Mangas-Sanjuán, V.; et al. Assessment of the Inter-Batch Variability of Microstructure Parameters in Topical Semisolids and Impact on the Demonstration of Equivalence. Pharmaceutics 2019, 11, 503.

The authors wish to make the following corrections to this paper [...].

Statistical Methods for Quality Equivalence of Topical Products. 0.5 mg/g Betamethasone Ointment as a Case-Study.

This study examines the statistical implications, and their possible implementation, of the "Draft guideline on quality and equivalence of topical products" issued by the European Medicines Agency in 2018, with particular focus on the section devoted to quality equivalence of physical properties. A new confidence interval to conduct the quality equivalence test and a way to cope with the multiplicity of quality parameters are presented and discussed. As an example, the results and the statistical analysis of a study on betamethasone 0.5 mg/g ointment are presented. It is suggested that the equivalence limits proposed in the draft guideline are overly strict: It is as difficult to declare quality equivalence between two packaging formats of the same reference product as to declare quality equivalence between the reference and the test product.

Relationship between rheological properties, in vitro release and in vivo equivalency of topical formulations of diclofenac.

Determination of bioequivalence remains a challenge in generic topical drug development. To support pharmacokinetic studies, strategies to demonstrate microstructure sameness of the products being compared include in vitro evaluations, such as the comparison of rheological properties, droplet size and in vitro release rates. Nevertheless, defining the appropriate acceptance range to consider equivalence between test and reference formulation is complex. To shed more light into this issue, in vitro release and rheological properties were compared to in vivo bioequivalence data (systemic blood measurements within a clinical trial) after topical application of a single dose. Test and reference formulations of diclofenac diethylamine emulgels were evaluated. While the test formulation met the requirements for equivalence in both the in vivo bioequivalence and in vitro release study, the rheological properties were considered equivalent depending on the criteria used. The 90% confidence interval of the ratios between geometric mean values of both formulations were within the limits of 75-133%, but outside the 90-111% limit under discussion in the scientific community. Altogether these data indicate that differences beyond ±10% between rheological parameters of test and reference formulation might not translate into meaningful release nor bioavailability divergence.

Assessment of the Inter-Batch Variability of Microstructure Parameters in Topical Semisolids and Impact on the Demonstration of Equivalence.

Demonstration of similar microstructure is essential for demonstrating the equivalence of generic topical products since the microstructure of semisolids may affect the drug release. The objective of this study was to compare the microstructure-defining physical parameters of different batches of a reference ointment containing calcipotriol and betamethasone (Daivobet 50 µg/0.5 mg/g) in order to define the acceptance range that allows concluding equivalence between these batches. Being batches of the same reference product, they are expected to be clinically equivalent and possess similar microstructure. The 90% confidence intervals for the test/reference ratio of these physical parameters were calculated with parametric and non-parametric approaches. Both methods conclude that equivalent microstructure between batches cannot be demonstrated with a reasonable sample size when the acceptance range was set at ±10%, since several physical parameters exhibit inter-batch variability >10%. An acceptance range of ±10% is therefore too strict to conclude equivalence in the microstructure of semisolid dosage forms, given the inter-batch variability observed between batches of the reference product. A wider fixed acceptance range or an acceptance range widened based on the inter-batch variability of the reference product would be advisable.