Experience Learned and Perspectives on Using Model-Integrated Evidence in the Regulatory Context for Generic Drug Products-a Meeting Report.

This report summarizes relevant insights and discussions from a 2022 FDA public workshop titled Best Practices for Utilizing Modeling Approaches to Support Generic Product Development which illustrated how model-integrated evidence has been used and can be leveraged further to inform generic drug product development and regulatory decisions during the assessment of generic drug applications submitted to the FDA. The workshop attendees discussed that model-integrated evidence (MIE) approaches for generics are being applied in the space of long-acting injectable (LAI) products to develop shorter and more cost-effective alternative study designs for LAI products. Modeling and simulation approaches are utilized to support virtual BE assessments at the site of action for locally acting drug products and to assess the impact of food on BE assessments for oral dosage forms. The factors contributing to the success of the model-informed drug development program under PDUFA VI were discussed. The generic drug industry shared that decisions on formulation candidate/formulation variant selection, on pilot in vivo bioavailability studies, and on alternative study designs for BE assessment are informed by modeling and simulation approaches. There was agreement that interactions between the regulatory agencies and the industry are desirable because they improve the industry's understanding of scientific and other regulatory considerations on implementing modeling and simulation approaches in drug development and regulatory submissions.

Establishing the suitability of model-integrated evidence to demonstrate bioequivalence for long-acting injectable and implantable drug products: Summary of workshop.

On November 30, 2021, the US Food and Drug administration (FDA) and the Center for Research on Complex Generics (CRCG) hosted a virtual public workshop titled "Establishing the Suitability of Model-Integrated Evidence (MIE) to Demonstrate Bioequivalence for Long-Acting Injectable and Implantable (LAI) Drug Products." This workshop brought relevant parties from the industry, academia, and the FDA in the field of modeling and simulation to explore, identify, and recommend best practices on utilizing MIE for bioequivalence (BE) assessment of LAI products. This report summerized presentations and panel discussions for topics including challenges and opportunities in development and assessment of generic LAI products, current status of utilizing MIE, recent research progress of utilizing MIE in generic LAI products, alternative designs for BE studies of LAI products, and model validation/verification strategies associated with different types of MIE approaches.

Regulatory utility of physiologically-based pharmacokinetic modeling to support alternative bioequivalence approaches and risk assessment: A workshop summary report.

This report summarizes the proceedings for day 2 sessions 1 and 3 of the 2-day public workshop entitled "Regulatory Utility of Mechanistic Modeling to Support Alternative Bioequivalence Approaches," a jointly sponsored workshop by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the Center for Research on Complex Generics (CRCG). The aims of this workshop were: (1) to discuss how mechanistic modeling, including physiologically-based pharmacokinetic (PBPK) modeling and simulation, can support product development, and regulatory submissions; (2) to share the current state of mechanistic modeling for bioequivalence (BE) assessment through case studies; (3) to establish a consensus on best practices for using PBPK modeling for BE assessment to help drive further investment by the generic drug industry into mechanistic modeling and simulation; and (4) to introduce the concept of a Model Master File to improve model-sharing. The theme of day 2 covered PBPK absorption model for oral products as an alternative BE approach and a tool for supporting risk assessment and biowaiver (session 1), oral PBPK for evaluating the impact of food on BE (session 2), successful cases, and challenges for oral PBPK (session 3). This report summarizes the topics of the presentations of day 2 sessions 1 and session 3 from FDA, academia, and pharmaceutical industry, including the current status of oral PBPK, case examples as well as the challenges and opportunities in this area. In addition, panel discussions on the utility of oral PBPK in both new drugs and generic drugs from regulatory and industry perspective are also summarized.

The pharmacokinetic and safety profile of single-dose deferiprone in subjects with sickle cell disease.

Patients with sickle cell disease (SCD) who undergo repeated blood transfusions often develop iron overload. Deferiprone (Ferriprox®) is an oral iron chelator indicated for the treatment of transfusional iron overload due to thalassemia syndromes and has been recently approved as a treatment for iron overload in adult and pediatric patients with SCD and other anemias. The present study aims to characterize the pharmacokinetic (PK) profile of deferiprone (DFP) in adult subjects with SCD. In this phase I, open-label study, subjects with SCD were administered a single 1500 mg dose of DFP. Blood and urine samples were collected for PK assessments of DFP and its main metabolite, deferiprone 3-O-glucuronide (DFP-G). Eight subjects were enrolled and completed the study. Following drug administration, serum levels of DFP and DFP-G rose to maximum concentrations at 1.0 and 2.8 h post-dose, respectively. The half-lives of DFP and DFP-G were 1.5 and 1.6 h, respectively. The majority of administered drug was metabolized and excreted as DFP-G, with less than 4% excreted unchanged in urine up to 10 h post-dose. Subjects received a safety assessment 7 (± 3) days post-dose. Two subjects reported mild adverse events unrelated to the study drug, and no other safety concerns were reported. The PK profile of DFP in SCD subjects is consistent with previous reports in healthy adult volunteers, suggesting no special dosing adjustments are indicated for this population. These findings provide valuable insight for treating iron overload in patients with SCD, who have limited chelation therapy treatment options (trial registration number: NCT01835496, date of registration: April 19, 2013).

Evaluation of the efficacy and safety of deferiprone compared with deferasirox in paediatric patients with transfusion-dependent haemoglobinopathies (DEEP-2): a multicentre, randomised, open-label, non-inferiority, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Transfusion-dependent haemoglobinopathies require lifelong iron chelation therapy with one of the three iron chelators (deferiprone, deferasirox, or deferoxamine). Deferasirox and deferiprone are the only two oral chelators used in adult patients with transfusion-dependent haemoglobinopathies. To our knowledge, there are no randomised clinical trials comparing deferiprone, a less expensive iron chelator, with deferasirox in paediatric patients. We aimed to show the non-inferiority of deferiprone versus deferasirox. METHODS: DEEP-2 was a phase 3, multicentre, randomised trial in paediatric patients (aged 1 month to 18 years) with transfusion-dependent haemoglobinopathies. The study was done in 21 research hospitals and universities in Italy, Egypt, Greece, Albania, Cyprus, Tunisia, and the UK. Participants were receiving at least 150 mL/kg per year of red blood cells for the past 2 years at the time of enrolment, and were receiving deferoxamine (<100 mg/kg per day) or deferasirox (<40 mg/kg per day; deferasirox is not registered for use in children aged <2 years so only deferoxamine was being used in these patients). Any previous chelation treatment was permitted with a 7-day washout period. Patients were randomly assigned 1:1 to receive orally administered daily deferiprone (75-100 mg/kg per day) or daily deferasirox (20-40 mg/kg per day) administered as dispersible tablets, both with dose adjustment for 12 months, stratified by age (<10 years and ≥10 years) and balanced by country. The primary efficacy endpoint was based on predefined success criteria for changes in serum ferritin concentration (all patients) and cardiac MRI T2-star (T2*; patients aged >10 years) to show non-inferiority of deferiprone versus deferasirox in the per-protocol population, defined as all randomly assigned patients who received the study drugs and had available data for both variables at baseline and after 1 year of treatment, without major protocol violations. Non-inferiority was based on the two-sided 95% CI of the difference in the proportion of patients with treatment success between the two groups and was shown if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI was greater than -12·5%. Safety was assessed in all patients who received at least one dose of study drug. This study is registered with EudraCT, 2012-000353-31, and ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01825512. FINDINGS: 435 patients were enrolled between March 17, 2014, and June 16, 2016, 393 of whom were randomly assigned to a treatment group (194 to the deferiprone group; 199 to the deferasirox group). 352 (90%) of 390 patients had ß-thalassaemia major, 27 (7%) had sickle cell disease, five (1%) had thalassodrepanocytosis, and six (2%) had other haemoglobinopathies. Median follow-up was 379 days (IQR 294-392) for deferiprone and 381 days (350-392) for deferasirox. Non-inferiority of deferiprone versus deferasirox was established (treatment success in 69 [55·2%] of 125 patients assigned deferiprone with primary composite efficacy endpoint data available at baseline and 1 year vs 80 [54·8%] of 146 assigned deferasirox, difference 0·4%; 95% CI -11·9 to 12·6). No significant difference between the groups was shown in the occurrence of serious and drug-related adverse events. Three (2%) cases of reversible agranulocytosis occurred in the 193 patients in the safety analysis in the deferiprone group and two (1%) cases of reversible renal and urinary disorders (one case of each) occurred in the 197 patients in the deferasirox group. Compliance was similar between treatment groups: 183 (95%) of 193 patients in the deferiprone group versus 192 (97%) of 197 patients in the deferisirox group. INTERPRETATION: In paediatric patients with transfusion-dependent haemoglobinopathies, deferiprone was effective and safe in inducing control of iron overload during 12 months of treatment. Considering the need for availability of more chelation treatments in paediatric populations, deferiprone offers a valuable treatment option for this age group. FUNDING: EU Seventh Framework Programme.

Randomized, Blinded, Placebo- and Positive-Controlled Crossover Study to Determine the Effect of Deferiprone on the QTc Interval in Healthy Subjects.

This study evaluated whether deferiprone, an oral iron chelator, acts to prolong the QT interval. Fifty healthy volunteers received single doses of each of the following: therapeutic dose of deferiprone (33 mg/kg), supratherapeutic dose (50 mg/kg), placebo, or moxifloxacin, a positive control known to significantly prolong QT interval. Following each dose, subjects underwent cardiac monitoring, pharmacokinetics assessments, and safety assessments. Based on the QT interval obtained using the Fridericia correction for heart rate (QTcF), the upper bound of the 1-sided 95% confidence interval of the mean difference between deferiprone and placebo was <10 milliseconds (the threshold of concern defined by authorities) at all time points for both doses: maximum difference of 3.01 milliseconds for the therapeutic dose and 5.23 milliseconds for the supratherapeutic dose. The difference in dQTcF between moxifloxacin and placebo demonstrated that the study was adequately sensitive to detect a significant prolongation of QTcF. The concentration-response correlation analyses revealed some weak but statistically significant trends of increase in dQTcF and ddQTcF with increasing exposure to deferiprone, but these trends should have no clinical consequence even at the recommended maximum dosage. In conclusion, there was no clinically meaningful effect on QTc interval following single therapeutic or supratherapeutic doses of deferiprone.

The Global Bioequivalence Harmonization Initiative: Summary report for EUFEPS international conference.

Bioequivalence (BE) is considered one of the key questions in new and generic drug product development and registration worldwide. However, the regulations and jurisdiction vary from country to country and continent to continent. Harmonization of regulatory requirements and criteria for BE determination may avoid unnecessary repetition of BE studies and minimize drug exposure to humans. Harmonization around the globe may be achieved by a better understanding of scientific principles and expectations from different regulatory authorities. To facilitate global harmonization, the Network on Bioavailability and Biopharmaceutics (BABP) under the European Federation for Pharmaceutical Sciences (EUFEPS) launched a Global Bioequivalence Harmonization Initiative (GBHI) several years ago. This international conference was the first in a series of workshops organized by EUFEPS/BABP under GBHI. The workshop provided a forum for pharmaceutical scientists from academia, industry and regulatory agencies to have open discussions on selected BE issues in the hope of identifying common ground and arriving at a harmonized view on these topics.

Effects of renal impairment on the pharmacokinetics of orally administered deferiprone.

AIMS: In light of the growing recognition of renal disease in thalassemia, it is important to understand the impact of renal impairment on the pharmacokinetics of iron chelators. This study evaluated the pharmacokinetics and safety of the iron chelator deferiprone (DFP) in subjects with renal impairment in comparison with healthy volunteers (HVs). METHODS: Thirty-two subjects were categorized into four groups based on degree of renal impairment: none, mild, moderate or severe, as determined by estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR). All subjects received a single oral dose of 33 mg kg(-1) DFP, provided serum and urine samples for pharmacokinetic assessment over 24 h and were monitored for safety. RESULTS: Renal clearance of DFP decreased as renal impairment increased. However, based on Cmax , AUC(0,t) and AUC(0,∞), there were no significant group differences in systemic exposure, because less than 4% of the drug was excreted unchanged in the urine. DFP is extensively metabolized to a renally excreted, pharmacologically inactive metabolite, deferiprone 3-O-glucuronide (DFP-G), which exhibited higher Cmax , AUC(0,t), AUC(0,∞) and longer tmax and t1/2 in the renally impaired groups compared with HVs. The Cmax and AUCs of DFP-G increased as eGFR decreased. Overall, 75%-95% of the dose was retrieved in urine, either as DFP or DFP-G, regardless of severity of renal impairment. With respect to safety, DFP was well tolerated. CONCLUSIONS: These data suggest that no adjustment of the DFP dosage regimen in patients with renal impairment is necessary, as there were no significant changes in the systemic exposure to the drug.

BCS Biowaivers: Similarities and Differences Among EMA, FDA, and WHO Requirements.

The Biopharmaceutics Classification System (BCS), based on aqueous solubility and intestinal permeability, has enjoyed wide use since 1995 as a mechanism for waiving in vivo bioavailability and bioequivalence studies. In 2000, the US-FDA was the first regulatory agency to publish guidance for industry describing how to meet criteria for requesting a waiver of in vivo bioavailability and bioequivalence studies for highly soluble, highly permeable (BCS Class I) drugs. Subsequently, the World Health Organization (WHO) and European Medicines Agency (EMA) published guidelines recommending how to obtain BCS biowaivers for BCS Class III drugs (high solubility, low permeability), in addition to Class I drugs. In 2015, the US-FDA became better harmonized with the EMA and WHO following publication of two guidances for industry outlining criteria for obtaining BCS biowaivers for both Class I and Class III drugs. A detailed review and comparison of the BCS Class I and Class III criteria currently recommended by the US-FDA, EMA, and WHO revealed good convergence of the three agencies with respect to BCS biowaiver criteria. The comparison also suggested that, by applying the most conservative of the three jurisdictional approaches, it should be possible for a sponsor to design the same set of BCS biowaiver studies in preparing a submission for worldwide filing to satisfy US, European, and emerging market regulators. It is hoped that the availability of BCS Class I and Class III biowaivers in multiple jurisdictions will encourage more sponsors to request waivers of in vivo bioavailability/bioequivalence testing using the BCS approach.

Harmonization of regulatory approaches for evaluating therapeutic equivalence and interchangeability of multisource drug products: workshop summary report.

Regulatory approaches for evaluating therapeutic equivalence of multisource (or generic) drug products vary among different countries and/or regions. Harmonization of these approaches may decrease the number of in vivo bioequivalence studies and avoid unnecessary drug exposure to humans. Global harmonization for regulatory requirements may be promoted by a better understanding of factors underlying product performance and expectations from different regulatory authorities. This workshop provided an opportunity for pharmaceutical scientists from academia, industry and regulatory agencies to have open discussions on current regulatory issues and industry practices, facilitating harmonization of regulatory approaches for establishing therapeutic equivalence and interchangeability of multisource drug products.

Harmonization of regulatory approaches for evaluating therapeutic equivalence and interchangeability of multisource drug products: workshop summary report.

Regulatory approaches for evaluating therapeutic equivalence of multisource (or generic) drug products vary among different countries and/or regions. Harmonization of these approaches may decrease the number of in vivo bioequivalence studies and avoid unnecessary drug exposure to humans. Global harmonization for regulatory requirements may be promoted by a better understanding of factors underlying product performance and expectations from different regulatory authorities. This workshop provided an opportunity for pharmaceutical scientists from academia, industry and regulatory agencies to have open discussions on current regulatory issues and industry practices, facilitating harmonization of regulatory approaches for establishing therapeutic equivalence and interchangeability of multisource drug products.