Bioequivalence Approach Research Articles

Cutaneous pharmacokinetics-based bioequivalence: A clinical dermal open flow microperfusion verification study using lidocaine and prilocaine combination topical products

BackgroundUsing accurate, sensitive, reproducible and efficient in vivo cutaneous pharmacokinetics (PK)-based bioequivalence (BE) approaches can promote the development of topical generic drug products. A clinical dermal open flow microperfusion (dOFM) study has previously demonstrated the BE of topical drug products containing a hydrophilic drug. However, the utility of dOFM to evaluate the topical BE of drug products containing moderately lipophilic drugs, more representative of most topical drugs, has not yet been established. ObjectiveTo evaluate the ability of a clinical dOFM study to assess BE of topical products containing two moderately lipophilic drugs that have only minor differences in chemical and physical properties. MethodsThe study included 20 healthy subjects. Four application sites on each thigh were treated with fixed dose lidocaine/prilocaine combination products, and dermal drug concentrations were monitored with two dOFM probes per application site for 12 h. A reference cream was compared to itself and to an approved generic cream (both serving as positive controls for BE), and to a gel (negative control). BE was established based on AUC0to12h and Cmax using the scaled-average-BE approach. Systemic exposure of both drugs was assessed throughout the study. ResultsBE was successfully demonstrated for the positive controls, and not for the negative control, for both drugs. The systemic exposure of both drugs was negligible. ConclusionsdOFM accurately demonstrated BE between bioequivalent topical creams, sensitively discriminated between different formulations and differentiated the cutaneous PK of both study drugs, even though they differ only slightly in chemical and physical properties. These results support the utility of dOFM as a cutaneous PK-based BE approach for topical lipophilic drugs, including lidocaine and prilocaine.

Model-based bioequivalence approach for sparse pharmacokinetic bioequivalence studies: Model selection or model averaging?

Conventional pharmacokinetic (PK) bioequivalence (BE) studies aim to compare the rate and extent of drug absorption from a test (T) and reference (R) product using non-compartmental analysis (NCA) and the two one-sided test (TOST). Recently published regulatory guidance recommends alternative model-based (MB) approaches for BE assessment when NCA is challenging, as for long-acting injectables and products which require sparse PK sampling. However, our previous research on MB-TOST approaches showed that model misspecification can lead to inflated type I error. The objective of this research was to compare the performance of model selection (MS) on R product arm data and model averaging (MA) from a pool of candidate structural PK models in MBBE studies with sparse sampling. Our simulation study was inspired by a real case BE study using a two-way crossover design. PK data were simulated using three structural models under the null hypothesis and one model under the alternative hypothesis. MB-TOST was applied either using each of the five candidate models or following MS and MA with or without the simulated model in the pool. Assuming T and R have the same PK model, our simulation shows that following MS and MA, MB-TOST controls type I error rates at or below 0.05 and attains similar or even higher power than when using the simulated model. Thus, we propose to use MS prior to MB-TOST for BE studies with sparse PK sampling and to consider MA when candidate models have similar Akaike information criterion.

Pharmacokinetics and Bioequivalence of Two Formulations of Azithromycin Tablets: A Randomized, Single-Dose, Three-Period, Crossover Study in Healthy Chinese Volunteers Under Fasting and Fed Conditions.

Azithromycin is the first azalide antibiotic that is related to the macrolide family of antibiotics. Bioequivalence studies in China are initiated by the National Medical Products Administration (NMPA), which supports a generic consistency evaluation program for ensuring that generic products manufactured in China meet the required standards and provide equivalent therapeutic effects to their reference products. This study aimed to assess the bioequivalence of two azithromycin tablets under both fasting and fed conditions in healthy Chinese volunteers. This was a single-center, open-label, single-dose, randomized, three-way crossover trial with two independent groups (fasting group and fed group). A total of 72 healthy Chinese subjects (36 subjects in the fasting state and 36 subjects in the fed state) were enrolled and randomized to treatment. Blood samples were collected from 0 to 120 h after a single oral dose of a 250-mg generic azithromycin tablet (test, T) or branded azithromycin tablet (reference, R). The plasma concentrations of azithromycin were determined by high-performance liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry (HPLC‒MS/MS). A non-compartmental analysis method was used to estimate the pharmacokinetic parameters. Adverse events were documented. In a fasting state, the bioequivalence of maximum plasma concentration (Cmax) was evaluated using the reference-scaled average bioequivalence (RSABE) approach (within-subject standard deviation, SWR >0.294), and the bioequivalence of area under the concentration-time curve from time 0 to the time of the last measurable plasma concentration (AUC0-t) and area under the concentration-time curve from time 0 extrapolated to infinity (AUC0-∞) were evaluated by the average bioequivalence (ABE) method (SWR < 0.294). The geometric mean ratio (GMR) of T/R for Cmax was 106.49%, while the 95% upper confidence bound was < 0. The GMRs of AUC0-t and AUC0-∞ were 103.34% and 101.28%, and the 90% confidence intervals (CIs) of the test/reference were 95.90-111.35%/94.85-108.15%, respectively. In the fed state, the RSABE approach was applied to estimate the bioequivalence of Cmax (SWR >0.294), and the ABE approach was applied to estimate the bioequivalence of AUC0-t and AUC0-∞ (SWR < 0.294). The GMR for Cmax was 99.80%, while the 95% upper confidence bound value was < 0. The GMRs of AUC0-t and AUC0-∞ were 97.07% and 98.15%, and the 90% CIs of the T/R were 90.02-104.68% and 90.66-106.25%, respectively. All adverse events were mild and transient. The trial indicated that the test and the reference azithromycin tablets were bioequivalent and well tolerated in healthy Chinese volunteers under both fasting and fed conditions. Clinicaltrials, ChiCTR2300071630 (retrospectively registered in 19/05/2023).

Leveraging Modeling and Simulation to Enhance the Efficiency of Bioequivalence Approaches for Generic Drugs: Highlights from the 2023 Generic Drug Science and Research Initiatives Public Workshop.

The 2023 Generic Drug Science and Research Initiative Public Workshop organized by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) discussed the research needs to improve and enhance bioequivalence (BE) approaches for generic drug development. FDA takes such research needs and panel discussions into account to develop its Generic Drug User Fee Amendments III (GDUFA III) Science and Research Initiatives specific to generics. During the five workshop sessions, presentations and panel discussions focused on identifying and addressing scientific gaps and research needs related to nitrosamine impurity issues, BE assessment for oral products, innovative BE approaches for long-acting injectable products, alternative BE approaches for orally inhaled products, and advanced BE methods for topical products. Specifically, this report highlights the discussions on how to improve BE assessment for developing generic drug products based on research priorities for leveraging quantitative methods and modeling, as well as artificial intelligence/machine learning (AI/ML).

Scaled average bioequivalence methods for highly variable drugs: Leveling-off soft limits and the EMA's 2010 guideline (some ways to improve its type I error control).

The regulatory EMA's reference scaled average bioequivalence (RSABE) approach for highly variable drugs suffers from some type I error control problems at the neighborhood of the 30% coefficient of variation (CV), where the bioequivalence (BE) limits change from constant to linearly scaled. This paper analyses BE inference methods based on the "Leveling-off" (LO) soft sigmoid expanding BE limits that were proposed as an appealing surrogate for the EMA's limits and compares both approaches, on the replicated and partially replicated crossover designs. The initially proposed version of the LO method also has type I error inflation problems, albeit attenuated. But given its more mathematically regular character, it is more suitable for analytical corrections. Here we introduce two improvements over LO, one based on the application of Howe's method and the other based on correcting the estimation error. They further reduce the type I error inflation, although it does not disappear completely. Finally, the effect of heteroscedasticity on the above results is studied. It leads to inflation or deflation of the type I error, depending on the design and the type of heteroscedasticity (variability of the test product greater than that of the reference product or the opposite). The replicated design is much more stable against these effects than the partially replicated design and maintains these improvements much better.

Applications of Modeling and Simulation Approaches in Support of Drug Product Development of Oral Dosage Forms and Locally Acting Drug Products: a Symposium Summary.

The number of modeling and simulation applications, including physiologically based pharmacokinetic (PBPK) models, physiologically based biopharmaceutics modeling (PBBM), and empirical models, has been constantly increasing along with the regulatory acceptance of these methodologies. While aiming at minimizing unnecessary human testing, these methodologies are used today to support the development and approval of novel drug products and generics. Modeling approaches are leveraged today for assessing drug-drug interaction, informing dose adjustments in renally or hepatically impaired patients, perform dose selection in pediatrics and pregnant women and diseased populations, and conduct biopharmaceutics-related assessments such as establish clinically relevant specifications for drug products and achieve quality assurance throughout the product life cycle. In the generics space, PBPK analyses are utilized toward virtual bioequivalence assessments within the scope of alternative bioequivalence approaches, product-specific guidance development, and food effect assessments among others. Case studies highlighting the evolving and expanding role of modeling and simulation approaches within the biopharmaceutics space were presented at the symposium titled "Model Informed Drug Development (MIDD): Role in Dose Selection, Vulnerable Populations, and Biowaivers - Chemical Entities" and Prologue "PBPK/PBBM to inform the Bioequivalence Safe Space, Food Effects, and pH-mediated DDIs" at the American Association of Pharmaceutical Scientists (AAPS) PharmSci 360 Annual Meeting in Boston, MA, on October 16-19, 2022, and are summarized here.

Alternative Analysis Approaches for the Assessment of Pilot Bioavailability/Bioequivalence Studies.

Pilot bioavailability/bioequivalence (BA/BE) studies are usually conducted and analysed similarly to pivotal studies. Their analysis and interpretation of results usually rely on the application of the average bioequivalence approach. However, due to the small study size, pilot studies are inarguably more sensitive to variability. The aim of this work is to propose alternative approaches to the average bioequivalence methodology, in a way to overcome and reduce the uncertainty on the conclusions of these studies and on the potential of test formulations. Several scenarios of pilot BA/BE crossover studies were simulated through population pharmacokinetic modelling. Each simulated BA/BE trial was analysed using the average bioequivalence approach. As alternative analyses, the centrality of the test-to-reference geometric least square means ratio (GMR), bootstrap bioequivalence analysis, and arithmetic (Amean) and geometric (Gmean) mean ƒ2 factor approaches were investigated. Methods performance was measured with a confusion matrix. The Gmean ƒ2 factor using a cut-off of 35 was the most appropriate method in the simulation conditions frame, enabling to more accurately conclude the potential of test formulations, with a reduced sample size. For simplification, a decision tree is also proposed for appropriate planning of the sample size and subsequent analysis approach to be followed in pilot BA/BE trials.

Evaluation of model-based bioequivalence approach for single sample pharmacokinetic studies.

In a traditional pharmacokinetic (PK) bioequivalence (BE) study, a two-way crossover study is conducted, PK parameters (namely the area under the time-concentration curve [AUC] and the maximal concentration [ ]) are obtained by noncompartmental analysis (NCA), and the BE analysis is performed using the two one-sided test (TOST) method. For ophthalmic drugs, however, only one sample of aqueous humor, in one eye, per eye can be obtained in each patient, which precludes the traditional BE analysis. To circumvent this issue, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has proposed an approach coupling NCA with either parametric or nonparametric bootstrap (NCA bootstrap). The model-based TOST (MB-TOST) has previously been proposed and evaluated successfully for various settings of sparse PK BE studies. In this paper, we evaluate, via simulations, MB-TOST in the specific setting of single sample PK BE study and compare its performance to NCA bootstrap. We performed BE study simulations using a published PK model and parameter values and evaluated multiple scenarios, including study design (parallel or crossover), sampling times (5 or 10 spread across the dosing interval), and geometric mean ratio (of 0.8, 0.9, 1, and 1.25). Using the simulated structural PK model, MB-TOST performed similarly to NCA bootstrap for AUC. For , the latter tended to be conservative and less powerful. Our research suggests that MB-TOST may be considered as an alternative BE approach for single sample PK studies, provided that the PK model is correctly specified and the test drug has the same structural model as the reference drug.

Regulatory utility of mechanistic modeling to support alternative bioequivalence approaches: A workshop overview.

On September 30 and October 1, 2021, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the Center for Research on Complex Generics cosponsored a live virtual workshop titled "Regulatory Utility of Mechanistic Modeling to Support Alternative Bioequivalence Approaches." The overall aims of the workshop included (i) engaging the generic drug industry and other involved stakeholders regarding how mechanistic modeling and simulation can support their product development and regulatory submissions; (ii) sharing the current state of mechanistic modeling for bioequivalence (BE) assessment through case studies; (iii) establishing a consensus on best practices for using mechanistic modeling approaches, such as physiologically based pharmacokinetic modeling and computational fluid dynamics modeling, for BE assessment; and (iv) introducing the concept of a Model Master File to improve model sharing between model developers, industry, and the FDA. More than 1500 people registered for the workshop. Based on a postworkshop survey, the majority of participants reported that their fundamental scientific understanding of mechanistic models was enhanced, there was greater consensus on model validation and verification, and regulatory expectations for mechanistic modeling submitted in abbreviated new drug applications were clarified by the workshop.

Regulatory utility of physiologically based pharmacokinetic modeling for assessing food impact in bioequivalence studies: A workshop summary report.

This workshop report summarizes the presentations and panel discussion related to the use of physiologically based pharmacokinetic (PBPK) modeling approaches for food effect assessment, collected from Session 2 of Day 2 of the workshop titled "Regulatory Utility of Mechanistic Modeling to Support Alternative Bioequivalence Approaches." The US Food and Drug Administration in collaboration with the Center for Research on Complex Generics organized this workshop where this particular session titled "Oral PBPK for Evaluating the Impact of Food on BE" presented successful cases of PBPK modeling approaches for food effect assessment. Recently, PBPK modeling has started to gain popularity among academia, industries, and regulatory agencies for its potential utility during bioavailability (BA) and/or bioequivalence (BE) studies of new and generic drug products to assess the impact of food on BA/BE. Considering the promises of PBPK modeling in generic drug development, the aim of this workshop session was to facilitate knowledge sharing among academia, industries, and regulatory agencies to understand the knowledge gap and guide the path forward. This report collects and summarizes the information presented and discussed during this session to disseminate the information into a broader audience for further advancement in this area.

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.

A Fully Replicate, Cross-over, Bioequivalence Study to Compare Two Prolonged Release, Multi-matrix Tablet Formulations of Budesonide in Healthy Indian Adults

Introduction: Budesonide is a synthetic, non halogenated corticosteroid, structurally related to 16α-hydroxyprednisolone, which is approved as first-line therapy for various gastrointestinal disorders. Budesonide prolonged-release tablets incorporating multi-matrix technology {Cortiment® 9 mg: Reference product (R)} were approved in India for induction of remission in adult patients with mild-to-moderate active ulcerative colitis. Aim: To assess the bioavailability, safety and tolerability of a single dose of generic budesonide prolonged-release tablets 9 mg {CortirowaTM OD; Test product (T)} and demonstrate their bioequivalence to Reference product (R) in healthy Indian adults under fasting conditions. Materials and Methods: In this randomised, open-label, single-dose, balanced, 2-treatment, 2-sequence, 4-period, fully replicate, cross-over bioequivalence study conducted from 12 July 2021 to 08 August 2021 at Ecron Acunova Limited, Manipal, India, 56 participants were randomly allocated (1:1) to treatment sequences Test-Reference-Test-Reference (TRTR) or Reference-Test-Reference-Test (RTRT). After a 10-hour overnight fast, participants were administered a single oral dose of T or R along with 240 mL of water. After each dose, a total of 26 venous blood samples (each 4 mL) were collected from each participant, at hourly intervals until 20 hours, and at 24, 30, 36, 48, and 72 hours. Plasma budesonide concentrations were analysed using a validated Liquid ChromatographyTandem-Mass Spectrometry (LC-MS/MS) method. Based on the randomisation sequences, the treatment periods were defined as test product treatment Period-1 (T1), test product treatment Period-2 (T2), reference product treatment Period-1 (R1), and reference product treatment Period-2 (R2). The primary pharmacokinetic parameters were peak plasma concentration (Cmax) and area under the concentration-time curve from time zero to the last sample with quantifiable concentration (AUC0-t). Results: Test and reference products were comparable in terms of mean (standard deviation) Cmax {pg/mL: T1=2163.0 (1423.9) and T2=2456.25 (1346.035) vs R1=2301.59 (1582.995) and R2=2437.62 (1437.665)} and AUC0-t {hr.pg/mL: T1=27938.0 (16431.23) and T2=33629.58 (18407.253) vs R1=25882.41 (17250.267) and R2=33146.25 (19350.222)}. As the within-subject Standard Deviation (SD) of R (SWR) for Cmax and AUC0-t was ≥0.294, the reference-Scaled Average Bioequivalence (SABE) approach was used. The bioequivalence criteria prespecified using the Scaled Average Bioequivalence (SABE) approach were met as the 95% upper confidence bound for (μT-μR)2 - θs2 WR of Cmax (-0.255371831) and AUC0-t (-0.445865013) were both ≤0, and the point estimate (T/R) geometric mean ratio of Cmax (0.97) and AUC0-t (1.06) were both within 0.80 and 1.25. While 10 Adverse Events (AEs) were reported in the study, all were of mild intensity. Conclusion: CortirowaTM OD was bioequivalent to Cortiment® 9 mg in healthy Indian adults under fasting conditions. Both the products were found to be well tolerated.

Mechanistic modeling of drug products applied to the skin: A workshop summary report.

The development of a generic drug product involves demonstrating that there is no significant difference in the rate and extent to which the active ingredient becomes available at the site of action, relative to the reference listed drug product. This remains challenging for many locally acting topical dermatological products because measuring the concentration of the active ingredient at the site of action in the skin may not be straightforward, and, in most instances, there are no established relationships between skin and plasma pharmacokinetic profiles. In recent years, the Office of Generic Drugs of the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) established scientific research programs with the goal of enhancing patient access to high quality, affordable topical dermatological generics. A key strategy of these research programs was to leverage modeling and simulation methodologies that accelerate the development of these generics by facilitating alternative bioequivalence approaches for dermatological drug products. This report summarizes relevant insights and discussions from a 2021 FDA public workshop titled "Regulatory Utility of Mechanistic Modeling to Support Alternative Bioequivalence Approaches," which illustrated how mechanistic modeling and simulation approaches can be utilized (and have been used) to inform generic drug product development and regulatory decisions during the assessment of generic drug applications submitted to the FDA.

A Study to Compare Bioequivalence Approach Between FDA and EMA in a Highly Variable Drug: Pinaverium Bromide Film Tablets

The aim of this study is to investigate pharmacokinetic parameters of test and reference film tablet formulations of a highly variable drug, pinaverium bromide, under fasting conditions and to assess their bioequivalence in accordance with the FDA and EMA criteria. A randomised open-label, single oral dose, three-sequence, three-period, semi-replicated, cross-over trial was conducted with 36 healthy subjects. The intrasubject variability of reference products for Cmax and AUC0-tlast was found to be more than 50%. While bioequivalence was proven according to the FDA reference scaled average bioequivalence approach with only 36 subjects, more than 200 subjects are required to demonstrate bioequivalence in accordance with the EMA bioequivalence guideline. It is believed that the EMA bioequivalence criteria are too stringent for highly variable drugs whose intrasubject variability are more than 30% for both Cmax and AUC0-tlast and that in consequence the EMA ought to revise their bioequivalence guidelines for such drugs in the future.

Trapezoid bioequivalence: A rational bioavailability evaluation approach on account of the pharmaceutical-driven balance of population average and variability.

Among the current approaches for the analysis of bioequivalence, the average bioequivalence (ABE) is limited only to the mean bioavailability, whereas the population bioequivalence (PBE) criterion aggregates both mean and variance in a general comparison formula. However, a rational bioequivalence criterion capable of judging specific drug considerations is always still preferred. As an alternative approach, we introduce an aggregate criterion, namely, the trapezoid bioequivalence (TBE), which includes the consideration of both mean and variance of the bioavailability and adapted weighting of a drug's therapeutic properties. We first applied our method to specific simulated scenarios to compare the strengths and weaknesses of current bioequivalence approaches and demonstrate the improvements brought by TBE. As well, the impact of sample size and variability on ABE, PBE, and TBE are assessed using a population pharmacokinetic model of methylphenidate. Our results indicate that TBE inherits the advantages of both ABE and PBE while greatly reducing their inadequacies. Through simulations with population pharmacokinetic models of specific scenarios, we confirm that (1) TBE does not encounter the overly permissiveness issue of PBE, (2) TBE respects the hierarchy to ABE (TBE => ABE), and (3) TBE assesses bioequivalence with a restriction on σT2‐σR2 without an increase to type 2 errors. The clinically inspired simulations demonstrate TBE’s superiority in a realistic context and its potential usefulness in practice. Moreover, the parameter choice in TBE may be adapted according to the specific context of a drug's pharmacological and pharmacodynamic properties.

Physiologically‐Based Pharmacokinetic Modeling to Support Determination of Bioequivalence for Dermatological Drug Products: Scientific and Regulatory Considerations

Physiologically-based pharmacokinetic (PBPK) modeling and simulation provides mechanism-based predictions of the pharmacokinetics of an active ingredient following its administration in humans. Dermal PBPK models describe the skin permeation and disposition of the active ingredient following the application of a dermatological product on the skin of virtual healthy and diseased human subjects. These models take into account information on product quality attributes, physicochemical properties of the active ingredient and skin (patho)physiology, and their interplay with each other. Regulatory and product development decision makers can leverage these quantitative tools to identify factors impacting local and systemic exposure. In the realm of generic drug products, the number of US Food and Drug Administratioin (FDA) interactions that use dermal PBPK modeling to support alternative bioequivalence (BE) approaches is increasing. In this report, we share scientific considerations on the development, verification and validation (V&V), and application of PBPK models within the context of a virtual BE assessment for dermatological drug products. We discuss the challenges associated with model V&V for these drug products stemming from the fact that target-site active ingredient concentrations are typically not measurable. Additionally, there are no established relationships between local and systemic PK profiles, when the latter are quantifiable. To that end, we detail a multilevel model V&V approach involving validation for the model of the drug product of interest coupled with the overall assessment of the modeling platform in use while leveraging in vitro and in vivo data related to local and systemic bioavailability.

Assessment of Prescribability and Switchability by Using Multiple Bioequivalence Assessment Approaches.

In the drug development process, an assessment of bioequivalence is an integral part. For the evaluation of generics against the comparator, average bioequivalence approach is the gold standard method. In the recent past, there were many discussions on whether we have the adequate tool to evaluate generics and thereby drug interchangeability (prescribability and switchability) issue is addressed as average bioequivalence approach just considers population mean. Hence, the alternative approaches like population bioequivalence and individual bioequivalence assessment approaches arise as different variances like inter/ intra-subject variance and subject- by-formulation variance along with population mean are considered. Methoxsalen, in combination with long-wave UVA radiation, is used in the symptomatic management certain psoriasis. The study was aimed to establish the bioequivalence (BE) of a newly developed methoxsalen capsule (MTX test) with that of a reference methoxsalen capsule (MTX reference) using multiple BE methods (i.e., average [ABE], population [PBE], and individual [IBE]) by utilizing a new LC-MS/MS method. This is an open-label, randomized, balanced, two-treatment, three-period, three-sequence, crossover, single-dose (20 mg, 2 × 10 mg capsules), comparative, oral BE study conducted in 52 healthy, adult males under fasting conditions. Along with various pharmacokinetic (PK) parameters ABE, PBE, and IBE were also determined in the single study. A non-compartmental model best described the concentration-time data of both MTX test and reference. Both the formulations demonstrated nearly similar values of BE parameters (i.e., AUCo-t, AUC0-∞, Cmax, Tmax, and t1/2). For MTX test, the observed Cmax, AUC0-t, and AUC0- ∞ were 125.16±81.53 ng/mL, 313.73±260.86 ng h/mL, and 321.25±271.85 ng h/mL, respectively. For MTX reference, the values were 127.63±71.60 ng/mL, 329.11±252.91 ng h/mL, and 335.48±264.54 ng h/mL, respectively. The bioanalytical method was validated over the concentration range 0.100-100.00ng/mL and the coefficient of determination (r2) was ≥ 0.9991. The sensitivity of the method was 0.100 ng/mL with the accuracy and precision values of 115% and 10.54%, respectively. A single dose of MTX test met the ABE criteria of 80.00% -125.00% for Cmax, AUCo- t, and AUC0-∞, against MTX reference. The study outcome by PBE and IBE approaches proved that MTX Test was bio-inequivalent to MTX reference. Using multiple BE assessment methods in a single BE study is a novel approach and may overcome shortcomings of conventional bioequivalence assessment methods.

Has the Time Come to Employ Population and Individual Bioequivalence for the Evaluation of Generics?

Bioequivalence studies are a vital part of drug development. The average bioequivalence approach is the standard method of assessment to conclude whether the generic product is bioequivalent to the innovator product. Of late, debates are on whether the average bioequivalence approach adequately addresses drug interchangeability as it considers only population mean for the evaluation especially when highly variable drug products and narrow therapeutic index drugs are dealt with. Hence, the alternative approaches like population bioequivalence and individual bioequivalence assessment approaches emerge as they consider inter/intra-subject variance and subject- by-formulation variance along with population mean. The objective of the study was to apply different bioequivalence assessment approaches in a replicate bioequivalence study to evaluate the drug interchangeability. This was an open-label, single-dose, randomized, balanced, two-treatment, three-period, three-sequence, partial replicate crossover bioequivalence study of omeprazole enteric-coated tablet 20 mg conducted on 48 normal healthy subjects under fed conditions. The plasma concentration of omeprazole was analyzed by a validated bioanalytical method to determine the pharmacokinetic and statistical parameters to assess average bioequivalence, population bioequivalence, and individual bioequivalence. In this study, test formulation was shown to be bio-inequivalent to the reference formulation by average bioequivalence, population bioequivalence, and individual bioequivalence approaches. The outcome of the evaluation clearly states that the bioequivalence outcome of all these approaches are the same. Obviously, it does not mean that these three approaches provide the same outcome though the consideration of variances varies. Certainly, population bioequivalence and individual bioequivalence approach will be more accurate for the assessment of drug interchangeability.

Development and Validation of Highly Sensitive HPLC-Ms/Ms Method for the Determination of Duloxetine in Human Plasma and its Application to Clinical Pharmacokinetic Study by Assessing Multiple Bioequivalence Approaches

Development and Validation of Highly Sensitive HPLC-Ms/Ms Method for the Determination of Duloxetine in Human Plasma and its Application to Clinical Pharmacokinetic Study by Assessing Multiple Bioequivalence Approaches

Current Regulatory Standpoint on Evaluating the Bioequivalence of Different Classes of Generic Drugs - Is the Evaluation in the Right Direction?

The concept of evaluating bioequivalence has changed over a period of time. Currently, the Average Bioequivalence approach (ABE) is the gold standard tool for the evaluation of generics. Of late, many debates had arisen about employing ABE approach for the appraisal of all drug categories. This review aims to examine the limitations of ABE approach and the significances of Population Bioequivalence (PBE) and Individual Bioequivalence (IBE) approach, current regulatory thinking for assessing different categories of the drug, whether they are adequately assessed, and the evaluation is in the right direction. We carried out an organized search of bibliographic databases for peer-reviewed research literatures, regulatory recommendations, guidance documents using a focused review question and eligibility criteria. The standard tools were used to appraise the quality of retrieved documents and to make sure the authenticity of the data. In total 73 references were used in the review, the majority of the references (guidance documents) were from the different regulatory agencies and product-specific guidance. There were 29 product-specific guidance from USFDA and EMA. The limitations of the ABE approach were discussed in detail along with the significances of Population Bioequivalence (PBE) approach and Individual Bioequivalence (IBE) approaches. It is apparent from the review that IBE approach is a precise method for evaluating the drugs as it answers drug interchangeability (prescribability and switchability). IBE approach is followed by PBE approach and ABE approach for the evaluation of different categories of drugs in terms of precision.