Drilling down the bioequivalence assessment of topical antifungal products: Microstructure and release

Abstract

In recent years, the regulatory mechanisms for topical generic product bioequivalence (BE) assessment have been subjected to noteworthy changes, with the FDA issuing product specific guidances, and the EMA adopting a more universal approach with the quality and equivalence of topical products draft guideline. The agencies advise on a modular strategy for BE documentation. Nevertheless, their scope, data analysis and criteria are rather distinct.This study aims to tackle bioequivalence assessment issues of complex topical formulations starting by statistical implications of the EMA/FDA approaches concerning the documentation of qualitative (Q1), quantitative (Q2), microstructure (Q3) and performance requirements (Q4). As a model drug product, a bifonazole 10 mg/g cream formulation was selected. For this specific formulation, the commercially available Reference Product (RP) was compared with two comparator products, also commercially available, referred to as comparator product A (CPA) and comparator product B (CPB). The former displays Q1 sameness and Q2 differences, whilst CPB is categorically considered as Q1/Q2 different. Furthermore, intending to establish a regulatory rationale for the submission of a generic product according to the updated regulatory requirements, the RP was likewise compared with a Test Product (TP). This formulation was designed to display equal Q1/Q2 profile to that of the RP. Validated rheology and in vitro release test (IVRT) methods were used to infer on Q3/Q4 characteristics.During rheology studies, statistically significant RP batch to batch differences were observed. Therefore, in an attempt to surpass this heterogeneity, the initial pool of RP batches was expanded to include RP product batches at different lifecycle stages. Despite this effort, it was not possible to classify the RP/TP, RP/CPA or RP/CPB as rheologically equivalent products. Nevertheless, product performance results, retrieved from IVRT, were able to sustain equivalence between the RP and the formulations exhibiting Q1 sameness (TP and CPA). It should however be mentioned, that for some RP batch combinations, the IVRT results failed to demonstrate equivalence according to the EMA requirements. Enlarging the RP batch pool was then a critical step in further understanding an optimum statistical approach for establishing equivalence in product performance.This study highlights the need to that a ‘one-fits-all approach’ may not be an optimum path way for establishing the regulatory strategy and requirements to support generic product bioequivalence.