No abstract

The FDA Biopharmaceutical Classification System guidance allows waivers for in vivo bioavailability and bioequivalence studies for immediate-release solid oral dosage forms only for BCS class I. Extensions of the in vivo biowaiver for a number of drugs in BCS Class III and BCS class II have been proposed, particularly, BCS class II weak acids. However, a discrepancy between the in vivo- BE results and in vitro- dissolution results for a BCS class II acids was recently observed. The objectives of this study were to determine the oral absorption of BCS class II weak acids via simulation software and to determine if the in vitro dissolution test with various dissolution media could be sufficient for in vitro bioequivalence studies of ibuprofen and ketoprofen as models of carboxylic acid drugs. The oral absorption of these BCS class II acids from the gastrointestinal tract was predicted by GastroPlus™. Ibuprofen did not satisfy the bioequivalence criteria at lower settings of intestinal pH=6.0. Further the experimental dissolution of ibuprofen tablets in the low concentration phosphate buffer at pH 6.0 (the average buffer capacity 2.2 mmol L-1/pH) was dramatically reduced compared to the dissolution in SIF (the average buffer capacity 12.6 mmol L -1/pH). Thus these predictions for oral absorption of BCS class II acids indicate that the absorption patterns largely depend on the intestinal pH and buffer strength and must be carefully considered for a bioequivalence test. Simulation software may be very useful tool to aid the selection of dissolution media that may be useful in setting an in vitro bioequivalence dissolution standard.

No abstract

From a clinical viewpoint, not only are these prequalified generics bioequivalent and interchangeable with the reference product (Coartem, Novartis), but also the existing indirect evidence makes it possible to conclude that these WHO prequalified products are bioequivalent between themselves with respect to the AUC. The lack of the necessary precision to demonstrate bioequivalence between generics with respect to the C(max) within the conventional acceptance range does not preclude considering them as interchangeable, if necessary, since C(max) is considered to be of less clinical relevance for the relevant therapy.

Abstract. The aim of the present paper is to summarize the revised European Union (EU) Guideline on the Investigation of Bioequivalence and to discuss critically with respect to previous European requirements and present US Food and Drug Administration guidelines its more relevant novelties such as the following: in order to facilitate the development of generic medicinal products, the EU guideline includes the eligibility for Biopharmaceutics Classification System (BCS)-based biowaivers not only for BCS class I drugs but also for class III drugs with tighter requirements for dissolution and excipient composition. The permeability criterion of BCS classification has been substituted with human absorbability, as per the Biopharmaceutical Drug Disposition Classification System. The widening of the acceptance range for C max is possible only for highly variable reference products with an additional clinical justification. This scaled widening is carried out with a proportionality constant of 0.760 which is more conservative than the FDA approach and maintains the consumer risk at a 5% level when the intrasubject CV is close to 30%, due to the smooth transition between the scaled and the constant criteria. The guideline allows for the possibility of two-stage designs to obtain the necessary information on formulation differences and variability from interim analyses as a part of the pivotal bioequivalence study, instead of undertaking pilot studies. The guideline also specifies that the statistical analyses should be performed considering all factors as fixed, which has implications in the case of replicate designs.

Not only are the generic products bioequivalent with the reference product, but also with each other.

Abstract. This article describes regulatory approaches for approval of Bgeneric^orally inhaled drug products (OIDPs) in the United States, European Union, Brazil, China and India. While registration of a generic OIDP in any given market may require some documentation of the formulation and device similarity to the Boriginal^product as well as comparative testing of in vitro characteristics and in vivo performance, the specific documentation approaches, tests and acceptance criteria vary by the country. This divergence is due to several factors, including unique cultural, historical, legal and economic circumstances of each region; the diverse healthcare and regulatory systems; the different definitions of key terms such as Bgeneric^and Breference^drug; the acknowledged absence of in vitro in vivo correlations for OIDPs; and the scientific and statistical issues related to OIDP testing (such as how best to account for the batch-to-batch variability of the Reference product, whether to use average bioequivalence or population bioequivalence in the statistical analysis of results, whether to use healthy volunteers or patients for pharmacokinetic studies, and which pharmacodynamic or clinical end-points should be used). As a result of this discrepancy, there are ample opportunities for the regulatory and scientific communities around the world to collaborate in developing more consistent, better aligned, science-based approaches. Moving in that direction will require both further research and further open discussion of the pros and cons of various approaches.

The aim of the present investigation was to compare the pharmacokinetics of two tablet formulations of 600 mg of racemic ibuprofen obtained using enantiospecific and non-enantiospecific assays, in order to explore if chiral assays should be employed in bioequivalence studies of chiral active substances. The stereoselective assay showed that, for both formulations, there was an initial phase where (R)-ibuprofen was the predominant enantiomer followed by a final phase where (S)-ibuprofen was the predominant one. Results from both analytical methods proved that the two formulations were bioequivalent. However, the chiral bioanalytical method detected a larger difference in the eutomer than that showed by the nonchiral bioanalytical method. In conclusion, although the exposure ratios of enantiomers are near unity, the measurement of unresolved ibuprofen alone is not an adequate measure of bioequivalence since it may mask the actual difference in the eutomer exposure among formulations.