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.

Process of drug registration in Israel: the correlation between the number of discussions within the Ministry of Health and postapproval variations by EMA and/or FDA.

OBJECTIVES: US FDA and EMA allow facilitated regulatory pathways to expedite access to new treatments. Limited supportive data may result in major postapproval variations. In Israel, partly relying on Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and European Medicines Agency (EMA), clinical data are reviewed independently by the Advisory Committee of Drug Registration (ACDR). In this study, the correlation between the number of discussions at the ACDR and major postapproval variations is examined. DESIGN: This is an observational retrospective comparative cohort study. SETTING: Applications with FDA and/or EMA approval at time of assessment in Israel were included. The timeframe was chosen to allow a minimum of 3 years of postmarketing approval experience for potential major label variations. Data regarding the number of discussions at ACDR were extracted from protocols. Data on postapproval major variations were extracted from the FDA and EMA websites. RESULTS: Between 2014 and 2016, 226 (176 drugs) applications, met the study criteria. 198 (87.6%) and 28 (12.4%) were approved following single and multiple discussions, respectively. A major postapproval variation was recorded in 129 (65.2%) compared with 23 (82.1%) applications approved following single and multiple discussions, respectively (p=0.002). Increased risk for major variation was found for medicines approved following multiple discussions (HR=1.98, 95% CI: 1.26 to 3.09) with a median time of 1.2 years, applications approved based on phase II trials (HR=2.58, 95% CI: 1.72 to 3.87), surrogate endpoints (HR=1.99, 95% CI: 1.44 to 2.74) and oncologic indications (HR=2.48, 95% CI: 1.78 to 3.45). CONCLUSIONS: Multiple ACDR discussions associated with limited supportive data are predictive for major postapproval variations. Moreover, our findings demonstrate that approval by the FDA and/or EMA does not pave the way to automatic approval in Israel. In a substantial per cent of the cases, submission of the same clinical data resulted in different safety and efficacy considerations, requiring additional supporting data in some cases or even rejection of the application in others.

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.