Pharmacokinetic Bioequivalence between Generic and Originator Orally Inhaled Drug Products: Validity of Administration of Doses above the Approved Single Maximum Dose.

Pharmacokinetic bioequivalence of orally inhaled drug products is a critical component of the US FDA's "weight of evidence" approach, and it can serve as the sole indicator of safety and effectiveness of follow-on inhalation products approved in Europe and some other geographic areas. The approved labels of the orally inhaled drug products recommend the maximum number of actuations that can be administered in a single dose on one occasion. This single maximum dose may consist of one or more inhalations depending upon the product. Bioequivalence studies for the inhalation drug product registrations in the US and EU have employed single and multiple actuation doses, in some cases over and above the approved single maximum labeled doses, thus, inconsistent with the approved labeling of the reference products. Pharmacokinetics of inhaled drug products after single and multiple doses may be different, with implications for bioequivalence determined at single and multiple doses. Scientific literature indicates that the relative bioavailability of the Test and Reference products may differ between administrations of doses in one and multiple inhalations. Multiple doses not only alter the pharmacokinetics but also may reduce the sensitivity of the bioassay to actual differences between the Test and Reference product performances. Ability of the pharmacokinetic bioassay to accurately determine the extent of difference between two products may also be substantially reduced at high doses. Therefore, in our opinion, pharmacokinetic bioequivalence to support regulatory approvals of inhalation products at doses above the recommended single maximum dose should be avoided. Furthermore, the bioequivalence of products (if any) established at doses exceeding the approved single maximum doses should be revisited to determine if the products maintain bioequivalence when evaluated at the clinically relevant single maximum doses.

A crossover study to evaluate the pharmacokinetics and bioequivalence of hydroxychloroquine tablets in healthy Chinese subjects.

AIMS: Hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) has a high variability and a long half-life in the human body. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the bioequivalence of a generic HCQ tablet (test preparation) versus a brand HCQ tablet (reference preparation) under fasting and fed conditions in a crossover design. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This was an open-label, two-period randomized, single-dose, crossover study in 47 healthy Chinese subjects who were sequentially and randomly allocated either to the fed group (high-fat meal; n = 23) or the fasting group (n = 24). Participants in each group were randomized to the two arms to receive either a single 200-mg dose of the test preparation or a 200-mg dose of the reference preparation. The application of the two preparations in each patient was separated by a 28-day washout period, regarded as sufficiently long to avoid significant interference from residual drug in the body. Whole blood samples were collected over 72 hours after drug administration. RESULTS: A total of 23 subjects completed both the fed and the fasting parts of the trial. There were no significant differences in Cmax, AUC0-72h, and T1/2 between the test and reference preparation (p < 0.05). Food had no significant effect on Cmax and T1/2 (p < 0.05), but AUC0-72h values were significantly reduced under fed condition compared to fasting condition (p < 0.05). The 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the geometric mean ratios (GMRs) of Cmax and AUC0-72h were 0.84 - 1.05 and 0.89 - 0.98 in the fed study, and 0.97 - 1.07 and 0.97 - 1.05 in the fasting study, respectively. The carryover effect due to non-zero blood concentrations resulted in higher AUC0-72h values in the second period for both test and reference formulations and had no effect on the statistical results. No serious adverse events were reported. CONCLUSION: The investigation demonstrated that the test and reference preparations are bioequivalent and well tolerated under both fasting and fed conditions in healthy Chinese subjects.

Bioequivalence study of two formulations of afatinib dimaleate tablets in healthy subjects under fasting conditions: A randomized, open-label, single-dose, crossover trial.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the bioequivalence of two different afatinib dimaleate formulations in healthy Chinese subjects under fasting conditions and to assess their pharmacokinetic and safety profiles. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This randomized, open-label, 2-period, crossover, bioequivalence study included 32 healthy Chinese subjects. The subjects were assigned to receive a single 40-mg dose of generic or brand-named afatinib dimaleate tablet. Blood samples were collected pre-dose and up to 120 hours after dosing. Healthy subjects orally took the trial preparation (T) (afatinib maleate tablets developed by Jiangxi Shanxiang Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd., Gan Zhou, China) and the reference preparation (R) (afatinib maleate tablets developed by Boehringer Ingelheim Pharma GmbH & Co., Ingelheim, Germany) under fasting conditions in the appropriate period according to the randomization. We measured the blood concentrations, calculated the pharmacokinetic parameters of the two preparations in the human body, and evaluated whether formulations were bioequivalent. Safety of the preparations in healthy subjects was monitored during the whole trial. Safety assessment was conducted by vital signs, physical examination, laboratory examination, and 12-lead electrocardiogram during the study, i.e., from the time the subject received the test drug to the end of the last visit. RESULTS: Under fasting conditions, the 90% confidence intervals (CIs) of the geometric mean ratios of the test/reference for afatinib dimaleate were 93.34 - 103.92% for AUC0-t, 90.26 - 105.52% for Cmax, and 93.49 - 104.05% for AUC0-∞. CONCLUSION: The 90% CI for the geometric mean ratios (test/reference) of Cmax, AUC0-t, and AUC0-∞ were within the range of 80.00 - 125.00%, indicating that the test formulation was equivalent to the reference formulation in healthy Chinese subjects under fasting conditions. Both products were similar in terms of safety.

Evaluating gender effect in the generic bioequivalence studies by physiologically based pharmacokinetic modeling - A case study of dextromethorphan modified release tablets.

The United States Food and Drug Administration guidelines for the bioequivalence (BE) testing of the generic drug products suggests that there should be an equal proportion of male and female population in the BE study. Despite this requirement, many generic drug companies do not maintain the suggested proportion of female population in their studies. Several socio-economic and cultural factors lead to lower participation of the females in the BE studies. More recently, the regulatory agencies across the globe are requesting the generic drug companies to demonstrate the performance of their drug products in the under-represented sex via additional studies. In this work, we describe the case of Dextromethorphan modified release tablets where the gender effect on the product performance was evaluated by physiologically based pharmacokinetic (PBPK) modeling approach. We have compared the drug product's performance by population simulations considering four different scenarios. The data from all-male population (from in house Pharmacokinetic [PK] BE studies) was considered as a reference and other scenarios were compared against the all-male population data. In the first scenario, we made a comparison between all-male (100% male) vs all-female (100% female) population. Second scenario was as per agency's requirements-equal proportion of male and female in the BE study. As an extreme scenario, 100% male vs 30:70 male:female was considered (higher females than males in the BE studies). Finally, as a more realistic scenario, 100% male versus 70:30 male:female was considered (lower females than males in the BE studies). Population PK followed by virtual BE was employed to demonstrate the similarity/differences in the drug product performance between the sexes. This approach can be potentially utilized to seek BE study waivers thus saving cost and accelerating the entry of the generic products to the market.

Comparison of solubility profiles for pioneer and generic monensin premixes in biorelevant simulated intestinal fluid based on shake flask extractions.

In the United States, a generic Type A medicated article product can gain the FDA approval by demonstrating bioequivalence (BE) to the pioneer product by successfully conducting a blood level, pharmacodynamic, or clinical BE study. A biowaiver can be granted based on several criteria, assuming the dissolution of the test and reference products represents the only factor influencing the relative bioavailability of both products. Monensin is practically insoluble in H2O per the USP definition. Previously published data from a comparison study of monensin dissolution profiles from the pioneer product and four generic products using biorelevant media showed that generic monensin products demonstrated different dissolution profiles to the pioneer product in these USP biorelevant rumen media. This follow-up study compared the solubility profiles in simulated intestinal fluid (cFaSSIF, pH 7.5) for the pioneer product and four generic products. The generic monensin products demonstrated different in vitro dissolution profiles to the pioneer product in biorelevant media. The differences demonstrated in solubility and dissolution profiles are of concern regarding the potential efficacy of generic monensin in cattle. There are also additional concerns for the potential development of Eimeria resistance in cattle receiving a sub-therapeutic dose of monensin from a less soluble generic product.

In Vitro In Vivo Extrapolation and Bioequivalence Prediction for Immediate-Release Capsules of Cefadroxil Based on a Physiologically-Based Pharmacokinetic ACAT Model.

Physiologically based pharmacokinetic (PBPK) modeling is a mechanistic concept, which helps to judge the effects of biopharmceutical properties of drug product such as in vitro dissolution on its pharmacokinetic and in vivo performance. With the application of virtual bioequivalence (VBE) study, the drug product development using model-based approach can help in evaluating the possibility of extending BCS-based biowaiver. Therefore, the current study was intended to develop PBPK model as well as in vitro in vivo extrapolation (IVIVE) for BCS class III drug i.e. cefadroxil. A PBPK model was created in GastroPlus™ 9.8.3 utilizing clinical data of immediate-release cefadroxil formulations. By the examination of simulated and observed plasma drug concentration profiles, the predictability of the proposed model was assessed for the prediction errors. Furthermore, mechanistic deconvolution was used to create IVIVE, and the plasma drug concentration profiles and pharmacokinetic parameters were predicted for different virtual formulations with variable cefadroxil in vitro release. Virtual bioequivalence study was also executed to assess the bioequivalence of the generic verses the reference drug product (Duricef®). The developed PBPK model satisfactorily predicted Cmax and AUC0-t after cefadroxil single and multiple oral dose administrations, with all individual prediction errors within the limits except in a few cases. Second order polynomial correlation function obtained accurately predict in vivo drug release and plasma concentration profile of cefadroxil test and reference (Duricef®) formulation. The VBE study also proved test formulation bioequivalent to reference formulation and the statistical analysis on pharmacokinetic parameters reported 90% confidence interval for Cmax and AUC0-t in the FDA acceptable limits. The analysis found that a validated and verified PBPK model with a mechanistic background is as a suitable approach to accelerate generic drug development.

Generic lamotrigine extended-release tablets are bioequivalent to innovator drug in fully replicated crossover bioequivalence study.

OBJECTIVE: Lamotrigine is a commonly prescribed antiepileptic drug. U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-funded clinical studies have demonstrated bioequivalence (BE) for generic lamotrigine immediate-release (IR) products in epilepsy patients with generic substitution. To address the potential concerns about the risk of generic-brand substitution of lamotrigine extended-release (ER) products, considering the complexity of controlled release systems and pharmacokinetic variations associated with possible within-subject variability (WSV), this prospective study assessed (1) BE of generic and brand lamotrigine ER products in a fully replicated BE study design in healthy subjects and (2) whether such fully replicated study design and WSV data can better support the approval of generic lamotrigine ER products. METHODS: This open-label, single-dose, two-treatment, four-period, two-sequence, fully replicated crossover BE study compared generic lamotrigine ER tablet to brand Lamictal XR (200 mg) in 30 healthy subjects under fed conditions. Pharmacokinetics (PK) profiles were generated based on intensive blood sampling up to 144 h. RESULTS: The two products showed comparable peak plasma concentration (Cmax ), area under the concentration-time curve (AUC) from time zero to the last measurable time point (AUC0-t ) and AUC extrapolated to infinity (AUC0-inf ), whereas median time to Cmax (Tmax ) values differed, that is, 10 h for generic and 22 h for brand products, respectively. WSVs for PK metrics were small (~8% of Cmax and ~6% of AUC) and similar between these two products. PK simulation predicted equivalent PK measurements of both products at steady state and after brand-to-generic switch, except the first day upon switching. No serious adverse events were reported. SIGNIFICANCE: The generic lamotrigine ER tablet product demonstrates BE to the brand product in a fully replicated BE study design with healthy subjects, supporting the adequacy of the two-way crossover study design to demonstrate BE and generic-brand substitution of lamotrigine ER products.

Generic Medicinal Products in Immunosuppressive Therapy-Should It be a Challenge for Therapeutic Drug Monitoring?

ABSTRACT: Immunosuppressants have a narrow therapeutic index (NTIDs). Indisputably cyclosporine, tacrolimus, everolimus, and sirolimus have NTIDs, and only in the case of mycophenolic acid, a scientific discussion has not been yet concluded. Their specificities highlight the implications for generics introduced into the drug market, more precisely, with bioequivalence testing. In the European Union, the European Medicines Agency (EMA) released the "Guideline on the Investigation of Bioequivalence." The bioequivalence (BE) of the generic (tested, T) versus original (reference, R) product should be confirmed by obtaining a 90% confidence interval (CI) for the T:R ratio of each of the 2 decisive pharmacokinetic parameters, namely, the area under the curve (AUC) between 90.00% and 111.11%. A similar approach (90.00%-112.00%) for AUC was adopted by the Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health (CADTH) for NTIDs; however, the US Food and Drug Administration is still based on classic acceptance criteria: 90% CI between 80.00% and 125.00% but with special requirements of BE testing. A discussion about long-expected global consensus was performed in this study based on the literature concerning BE testing in the case of NTIDs. The narrow acceptance criteria reduce the potential mean difference in bioavailability between generic and original products by a few percent. To identify this problem, special attention has been paid to switching drugs (generic-generic, original-generic) and therapeutic drug monitoring after conversion (TDM). There is no global consensus on the acceptance criteria for the BE of generic drugs; therefore, consensus and harmonization are strictly necessary. This study presents a review of the generic drug market and its classification by manufacturers, drug agencies, and dates of marketing authorization. Guidelines for TDM optimization (during switching/conversion) have been proposed. Physicians and clinical pharmacists should pay special attention to switching immunosuppressive drugs between original versus generic formulations, and generic versus generic formulations. Patients and their families should be educated on the risks associated with uncontrolled conversion.

Evaluation of Biological Equivalence for Generic Tulathromycin Injections in Cattle.

The recent expiration of patents for the antibiotic tulathromycin has led to a significant increase in the number of generic tulathromycin products (GTPs) available. This study aims to evaluate the bioequivalence of four GTPs, which experienced a rapid increase in market share. The bioequivalence was evaluated by performing pharmacokinetic assessments. The four selected GTPs (Tulaject, Tulagen, Toulashot, and T-raxxin) were compared with the reference product, Draxxin. A dose of 2.5 mg/kg.bw/day was administered via subcutaneous injection, and blood samples were collected 460 times from 20 Holstein cattle. Plasma concentrations of tulathromycin were measured over time using LC-MS/MS analysis. Bioequivalence was evaluated using a statistical program for pharmacokinetic parameters, including the area under the concentration time curve (AUC) and the maximum plasma concentration (Cmax). The bioequivalence was considered proven if the difference between the test and reference products was within 20% for both AUC and Cmax. The results showed that the confidence interval (CI, 90%) for both AUC and Cmax values was within the 80~120% range, demonstrating the bioequivalence of the four GTPs compared to Draxxin. This study provides evidence for the bioequivalence of the selected GTPs, contributing to their validation for use as effective antibiotics.

Bioequivalence Evaluation of Topical Metronidazole Products Using Dermal Microdialysis in New Zealand Rabbits.

Comparative assessment of cutaneous pharmacokinetics (cPK) by dermal microdialysis (dMD) appears to be suitable to evaluate the bioequivalence (BE) of topical dermatological drug products applied to the skin (TDDPs). Although dMD studies in the literature have reported inconclusive BE assessments, we have addressed several methodological deficiencies to improve dMD's capability to assess BE between reference (R) and approved generic (referred to as test (T)) gel and cream products of metronidazole (MTZ). The 90% confidence interval (CI) of the geometric mean ratios for the Ln(AUC0-24) and Ln(Cmax) endpoints was centered within the BE limits of 80-125%. The CIs extended outside this range as the proof-of-principle study was not statistically powered to demonstrate BE (N = 7 rabbits). A power analysis suggests that, with the variability observed in this study, 21 rabbits for the cream and 11 rabbits for the gel would be sufficient to support an evaluation of BE with the 2 probe replicates we used, and only 10 and 5 rabbits would be sufficient to power the study for the cream and gel, respectively, if 4 probe replicates are used for each treatment per rabbit. These results indicate that dMD when properly controlling variables can be used to support BE assessments for TDDPs.

Pharmacokinetic evaluation and relative bioavailability pilot study of fidaxomicin in healthy Chinese subjects: An open, randomized, single-dose, cross-over study.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the pharmacokinetic (PK) characteristics, investigate relative bioavailability, and provide data for potential additional bioequivalence trials between generic fidaxomicin (test (T) formulation) and the original brand (reference (R) formulation) in healthy Chinese subjects. MATERIALS AND METHODS: An open, randomized, single-dose, cross-over study was conducted in 18 healthy Chinese subjects. The subjects randomly received T or R formulations and the alternative formulations were received after a 14-day wash-out period. Blood and fecal samples were collected and tested by liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry (LC-MS/MS). PK parameters were calculated using a non-compartmental model. Relative bioavailability considering commonly established bioequivalence criteria was assessed. RESULTS: Cmax were 3.58 ± 2.74 ng/mL and 6.01 ± 3.93 ng/mL, and AUC0-∞ were 35.71 ± 18.68 h×ng/mL and 52.15 ± 31.31 h×ng/mL for the T and R formulations, respectively. The tmax of both formulations was 5.00 hours. The cumulative fecal excretion rate (Fe0-96h/F) of fidaxomicin and its main active metabolite OP-1118 were similar for both formulations. The geometric mean ratios and 90% confidence intervals (CI) of AUC0-t, AUC0-∞, and Cmax were not completely within the range of 80.00 - 125.00%. Significant within-subject and inter-subject coefficients of variation (> 30%) were found. CONCLUSION: Despite the differences in exposure, PK characteristics and fecal recovery of the two formulations were similar, suggesting that an effective concentration of the generic fidaxomicin could be achieved locally in the gastrointestinal tract. Fidaxomicin was a highly viable drug, thus providing reference for future clinical study design.

Evaluation of the Physicochemical Properties of the Iron Nanoparticle Drug Products: Brand and Generic Sodium Ferric Gluconate.

Complex iron nanoparticle-based drugs are one of the oldest and most frequently administered classes of nanomedicines. In the US, there are seven FDA-approved iron nanoparticle reference drug products, of which one also has an approved generic drug product (i.e., sodium ferric gluconate (SFG)). These products are indicated for the treatment of iron deficiency anemia and are administered intravenously. On the molecular level, iron nanomedicines are colloids composed of an iron oxide core with a carbohydrate coating. This formulation makes nanomedicines more complex than conventional small molecule drugs. As such, these products are often referred to as nonbiological complex drugs (e.g., by the nonbiological complex drugs (NBCD) working group) or complex drug products (e.g., by the FDA). Herein, we report a comprehensive study of the physiochemical properties of the iron nanoparticle product SFG. SFG is the single drug for which both an innovator (Ferrlecit) and generic product are available in the US, allowing for comparative studies to be performed. Measurements focused on the iron core of SFG included optical spectroscopy, inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry (ICP-MS), X-ray powder diffraction (XRPD), 57Fe Mössbauer spectroscopy, and X-ray absorbance spectroscopy (XAS). The analysis revealed similar ferric-iron-oxide structures. Measurements focused on the carbohydrate shell comprised of the gluconate ligands included forced acid degradation, dynamic light scattering (DLS), analytical ultracentrifugation (AUC), and gel permeation chromatography (GPC). Such analysis revealed differences in composition for the innovator versus the generic SFG. These studies have the potential to contribute to future quality assessment of iron complex products and will inform on a pharmacokinetic study of two therapeutically equivalent iron gluconate products.

Untimed Efavirenz Drug Levels After Switching From Brand to Generic Formulations: A Short Communication.

BACKGROUND: In British Columbia, antiretrovirals are distributed at no cost to patients via a publicly funded program, using generic formulations if available. A generic efavirenz-emtricitabine-tenofovir DF (EFV-FTC-TDF) combination pill became available in April 2018. The authors compared EFV untimed drug levels in subjects switching from brand to generic EFV-FTC-TDF. METHODS: Archived plasma HIV viral load samples were identified for consenting participants who switched from brand to generic EFV-FTC-TDF; 3 preswitch and 2-3 postswitch samples, collected ≥1 month apart were assessed for each subject. "Untimed" EFV concentrations with unknown dosing and collection time were assessed using a validated liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry method. Participants' mean, minimum, and maximum EFV levels were compared using the Wilcoxon signed rank test. Participants with EFV levels in the range associated with lower risks of virologic failure and central nervous system toxicity (1000-4000 ng/mL), preswitch and postswitch, were enumerated. RESULTS: EFV levels were assessed in 297 preswitch and 249 postswitch samples from 99 participants, having exposure to brand and generic EFV for a median of 103 (Q1-Q3: 87-116) and 10.3 (Q1-Q3: 8.9-11.7) months, respectively. The final brand sample was collected at a median of 98 days preswitch; the first generic sample was collected at a median of 133 days postswitch. No significant differences were observed in participant mean EFV levels before (median 1968 ng/mL; Q1-Q3: 1534-2878 ng/mL) and after (median 1987 ng/mL; Q1-Q3: 1521-2834 ng/mL) switch (P = 0.85). Eighty participants had mean EFV levels within the 1000-4000 ng/mL range on the brand drug, of which 74 remained within this range postswitch. CONCLUSIONS: There were no statistically significant differences between untimed EFV levels in patients switching from the brand to generic EFV combination pill. Given the long elimination half-life of EFV, untimed drug levels may be a convenient way to estimate product bioequivalence.

Bioequivalence of a Generic Nateglinide Formulation in Healthy Chinese Volunteers under Fasting and Fed Conditions: A Randomized, Open-Label, Double-Cycle, Double-Crossover Study.

INTRODUCTION: Nateglinide or N-(trans-4-isopropylcyclohexyl-1-carbonyl)-D-phenylalanine is a drug with a rapid hypoglycemic effect that is mainly used in the treatment of type 2 diabetes. Very few studies have assessed bioequivalence based on feeding status. This study aimed to assess the pharmacokinetic bioequivalence and safety of nateglinide-containing tablets (0.12 g) in healthy Chinese volunteers under fasting and fed conditions. METHODS: The studies were performed in 2017-2018 in the Phase I Clinical Trial Ward of the Affiliated Hospital of Liaoning University of Traditional Chinese Medicine, China. Eligible Chinese volunteers received a single 0.12-g dose of the test or reference formulation, followed by a 7-day washout period and administration of the alternate formulation. Blood samples were collected at various time intervals, and plasma nateglinide concentrations were analyzed by liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry. Then, the adverse events, laboratory test results, vital signs, and physical exam findings were compared between the 2 groups. RESULTS: The ratios of the geometric means of Cmax, AUC0-t, and AUC0-inf of the tested to reference preparations under fasting conditions were 105.03% (90% confidence interval [CI]: 99.53-110.83%), 104.02% (90% CI: 101.37-106.74%), and 104.04% (90% CI: 101.38-106.77%), respectively. The same ratios under fed conditions were 96.55% (90% CI: 85.80-108.65%), 103.08% (90% CI: 100.07-106.18%), and 103.07% (90% CI: 100.21-106.01%), respectively. The 90% CI values for Cmax, AUC0-t, and AUC0-inf fell within the accepted range of bioequivalence (80.00-125.0%). Common adverse events included hypoglycemia, heart rate increase, palpitation, sweating, dizziness, and diarrhea. CONCLUSIONS: The test formulation (0.12 g) met the CFDA's regulatory definition for bioequivalence to the reference formulation. Both formulations were well tolerated by healthy Chinese subjects. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This trial has been registered in the Chinese Clinical trial registry (ChiCTR2000030694), March 10, 2020.

Application of the 3Rs principles in the development of pharmaceutical generics.

Although the 3Rs are broadly applied in nonclinical testing, a better appreciation of the 3Rs is needed in the field of differentiated or value-added pharmaceutical generics because the minor changes in formulation, dosage form, indication, and application route often do not require additional safety testing. The US FDA and the EU EMA have comprehensive regulations for such drugs based on quality, therapeutic equivalence, and safety guidelines. However, no scientific publications on how the concept of replacement and reduction from 3Rs principles can be applied in the safety assessment of differentiated generics were found in the public domain. In this review, we discuss the application of 3Rs in nonclinical testing requirements for differentiated generics. Practical examples are provided in the form of case studies from regulated markets. We highlight the need for utilization of existing data to establish equivalence (differentiated generic vs innovator) in efficacy and safety. The case studies indicate that data requirements from animal experiments have been reduced to a large extent in some major markets without compromising quality and safety. In this context, we also highlight the problem that on a global scale, a true reduction of animal experiments will only be achieved when all countries adopt similar practices.

In vitro and In silico biopharmaceutic regulatory guidelines for generic bioequivalence for oral products: Comparison among various regulatory agencies.

Generic drug development is a complex process that involves development of formulation similar to reference product. Because of the complexity associated with generic drug development, many regulatory agencies have come up with various guidelines. Out of many guidelines, the biopharmaceutics classification system that was introduced in 1995 based on aqueous solubility and permeability helped many pharmaceutical scientists across the globe to utilize the tool for formulation development, waiver of in vivo studies. Later on in vitro guidelines based on dissolution and in vitro in vivo correlation were introduced by many regulatory agencies with an intent to reduce number of in vivo human testing thereby facilitating shorter development time and faster approvals and launch. Most recently, understanding the importance in silico approaches such as physiologically based pharmacokinetic modelling, regulatory agencies such as United States Food and Drug Administration (USFDA) and European Middle East and Africa (EMA) came up with modelling guidance documents. Even though consensus exists between guidance documents from various regulatory agencies, still there are many minor to major differences exists between these guidance documents that needs to be considered while submitting a generic drug application. This review aims to compare all the in vitro and in silico guidance documents from major regulatory agencies with emphasis on latest trends and technologies combined with regulatory acceptability with an intention to harmonize regulations. Guidance documents from major regulatory agencies such as USFDA, EMA, World Health Organization, International Council for Harmonization and other emerging markets were compared. Similarities &differences among these guidance documents are critically reviewed to provide the reader a detailed overview of these guidance documents at one place.

Effect of Elevated pH on the Commercial Enteric-Coated Omeprazole Pellets Resistance: Patent Review and Multisource Generics Comparison.

Omeprazole is a widely used over-the-counter (20 mg) proton pump inhibitor, usually supplied as oral enteric-coated pellets intended to release at pH 5.5 and higher; however, it is sensitive to acidic pH. The likelihood of elevated gastric pH in practice is very high for patients; thus, the aim of this study was to investigate the effect of elevated pH on the performance of commercial omeprazole pellets. Commercial enteric-coated delayed-release pellets were tested with water uptake-weight loss (WU-WL) test at pH range between 1.2 and 4.5 in addition to "gastric" (pH 1.2 or 4.5) and "intestinal" (pH 7.4) phase dissolution tests. The range of physical characteristics of pellets was determined with a single pellet size and sedimentation time measurement, followed by the application of modified Stokes' Law equation. The coefficient of variation of pellet size and density, and volume-density determination coefficient (R2) as descriptors of coating thickness and microstructure variability, degree of ionisation of enteric polymers, aqueous solubility and molecular weight of plasticisers have been found useful to explain commercial delayed-release pellets behaviour during WU-WL and dissolution test. Investigated commercial delayed-release pellets demonstrated pH-dependent WU-WL results. "Gastric phase" dissolution testing of pellets at pH 4.5 showed the highest omeprazole degradation (48.1%) for Nosch Labs, intermediate values of dose loss (23.4% and 17.1%) for Teva and UQUIFA delayed-release pellets, respectively. Lab Liconsa pellets have been found as the least susceptible (3.2% of dose loss). Additionally, "gastric phase" dissolution test at pH 4.5 significantly influenced omeprazole release during the "intestinal phase". The risk of inadequate therapy associated with intake of investigated enteric-coated delayed-release pellets at elevated gastric pH has been found as minimal for Lab Liconsa and has increased from UQUIFA and Teva to Nosh Labs pellets.

Cutaneous Pharmacokinetics of Acyclovir Cream 5% Products: Evaluating Bioequivalence with an In Vitro Permeation Test and an Adaptation of Scaled Average Bioequivalence.

PURPOSE: The in vitro permeation test (IVPT) with a new statistical approach was investigated to evaluate the utility of an IVPT methodology as a sensitive tool to support a demonstration of bioequivalence (BE) for topical dermatological drug products. METHODS: IVPT experiments were performed utilizing ex vivo human skin. The initial screening tests involved four differently formulated acyclovir 5% creams: the U.S. Zovirax® as the reference product and the U.K. Zovirax®, Aciclovir 1A Pharma® and Aciclostad® as test products. Subsequently, a pivotal BE study was conducted comparing the two Zovirax® creams. The resulting data was used to evaluate BE of test (T) versus reference (R), T versus T, and R versus R, with an adaption of scaled average BE approach to address high variability in IVPT data. RESULTS: More acyclovir permeated into and through the skin from the two Zovirax® creams compared to the two non-Zovirax® creams. The U.S. Zovirax® cream showed a significantly higher Jmax and total amount permeated over 48 h, compared to the U.K. Zovirax® cream. The statistical analysis indicated that the test and reference products were not bioequivalent, whereas each product tested against itself was shown to be bioequivalent. CONCLUSIONS: The current study demonstrated that the IVPT method, with an appropriate statistical analysis of the results, is a sensitive and discriminating test that can detect differences in the rate and extent of acyclovir bioavailability in the skin from differently formulated cream products.

Lack of Association of Generic Brittle Status with Genetics and Physiologic Measures in Patients with Epilepsy.

PURPOSE: A patient was denoted to be generic brittle (GB) if they had a negative opinion about generics (e.g. prior history of a switch problem) or took the innovator brand of their most problematic anti-epileptic drug (AED) when generic was available. The aim of this hypothesis-generating study was to assess possible genetic and physiologic differences between GB and not GB patients with epilepsy. METHODS: Patients (n = 148) with epilepsy were previously characterized as being either GB or not GB. Blood was collected from each subject for genotyping and physiologic testing. Genotyping for 24 single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) and two copy number variants (CNVs) was performed across 12 genes in each patient. Forty-four physiologic tests were conducted in each patient. Chi square analysis was performed to assess for associations between genotyping results and GB status, as well as between physiologic test results and GB status. RESULTS: No SNP or CNV discriminated GB status in genetic analysis (genotype or allele frequency). Physiologic test results in this study were not associated with GB status. CONCLUSIONS: Questions from neurologists and patients about generics is frequently based on applicability of generic drug standards to individual subjects. However, findings here in patients with epilepsy did not uncover genetic or physiologic reasons that explained which patients were GB and which were not GB.

Influence of Different Populations on Pharmacokinetic Bioequivalence Results: Can We Extrapolate Bioequivalence Results from One Population to Another?

Purpose: Over the last 15 years, an ever-increasing proportion of pharmacokinetic bioequivalence studies for European/North American generic submissions appeared to have been conducted in geographical/ethnic populations other than those for which the drug is marketed for. The results of pharmacokinetic bioequivalence studies have traditionally been considered to be insensitive to the population studied. However, several recent studies have suggested that this may not necessarily be true. The objective of this study was to investigate whether there were any concerns regarding the current practice of extrapolating bioequivalence study results from one geographic/ethnic population to another. METHODS: In order for a regulatory agency to use bioequivalence results from one population to another, two formulations assessed as bioequivalent under fasted and fed conditions in one population must be bioequivalent in a geographically/ethnically different population under both conditions. Unfortunately, bioequivalence studies between a generic and its reference product for one submission are conducted using only one geographical/ethnic population. As bioequivalence study results between two populations for the same generic and reference products are not available, the food effect for the same reference product between two populations was compared. This is based on the rationale that if two products are bioequivalent under both fasted and fed conditions in two populations, even if there are PK differences in the product exposures between these two populations, the test to reference ratio, as well as the food effect, will remain constant within each population. Food effect (fed/fasted ratio) was calculated using pharmacokinetic data from publicly available regulatory resources and compared between two geographical/ethnic populations using the same reference for each studied drug product. Meta-analyses were conducted. RESULTS: Statistically significant differences (P<0.05) were found in the food effect between two populations for nine out of the ten (90%) available studied products. Among these, an observed clinical difference was suggested in three out of nine (33%) products. CONCLUSION: These results suggest that bioequivalence results from one population may not always be representative of what may be found in another population.