Bioequivalence and Bioavailability Forum 01:26 CEST

Main page Policy/Terms of Use Abbreviations Latest Posts

 Log in |  Register |  Search

ElMaestro
Hero

Denmark,
2017-12-25 18:28

Posting: # 18081
Views: 1,862
 

 Disturbing wording [Dissolution / BCS / IVIVC]

Hi all,

re. FDA's new biowaiver guidance Bioavailability and Bioequivalence Studies for Immediate-Release Solid Oral Dosage Forms Based on a Biopharmaceutics Classification System:

I do absolutely not like this sentence on page 8 re. the calculation of f2:
"Two dissolution profiles are considered similar when the f2 value is ≥ 50. To allow the use of mean data, the coefficient of variation should not be more than (...)"

If taken verbatim this means that an f2-based method is not acceptable when the CV is high, full stop. In that case I believe there's just the Mahalanobis distance left as a semi-bad proposal for a way forward.
I think and hope they meant something like "Two dissolution profiles are considered similar when the f2 value is ≥ 50. To allow the use of the plain f2 as a measure of similarity of dissolution profiles, the coefficient of variation should not be more than (...)"
- this would keep the door open for bootstrapping which was what was done internally at FDA for the now slightly famous Mesalamine case.

Goodbye to bootstrapping or just a little snafu when they wrote the draft?

if (3) 4

Best regards,
ElMaestro

"(...) targeted cancer therapies will benefit fewer than 2 percent of the cancer patients they’re aimed at. That reality is often lost on consumers, who are being fed a steady diet of winning anecdotes about miracle cures." New York Times (ed.), June 9, 2018.
Helmut
Hero
avatar
Homepage
Vienna, Austria,
2017-12-26 13:14

@ ElMaestro
Posting: # 18086
Views: 1,500
 

 Disturbing wording

Hi ElMaestro,

that’s not new. Same wording was already given in the FDA’s August 2000 Guidance and the Draft Revision 1 of May 2015. Same story in Appendix I of the EMA’s BE-GL.

Cheers,
Helmut Schütz
[image]

The quality of responses received is directly proportional to the quality of the question asked. ☼
Science Quotes
sameep
Junior

India,
2017-12-28 11:10

@ Helmut
Posting: # 18110
Views: 1,405
 

 Literature reported Permeability Studies Accepted?

Hi All,

Are permeability studies reported in literature (like absolute bioavailability >85%) acceptable for establishing BCS class I and apply for BCS Biowaiver (ANDA)? or we have to reinvent the Universe?

Regards,
Sameep.
Helmut
Hero
avatar
Homepage
Vienna, Austria,
2017-12-28 12:17

@ sameep
Posting: # 18113
Views: 1,396
 

 Reliable source, sufficient number of subjects

Hi Sameep,

» Are permeability studies reported in literature (like absolute bioavailability >85%) acceptable for establishing BCS class I and apply for BCS Biowaiver (ANDA)?

IMHO, studies from trustworthy sources (not published in the “Timbuktu Journal of Clinical Pharmacology”) should suffice. The devil is in the details. Likely those studies were performed by the originator – quite often in just twelve subjects. The guidance (Section B.1.) tells us:

A sufficient number of subjects should be enrolled to provide a reliable estimate of extent of absorption.

(my emphasis)

However, in a recent review* we find:

Permeability/Stability in the GIT
   When the drug is in solution, the in vivo permeation does not depend upon the quality of the API but of the mechanism of permeation and on drug stability. For this reason, the EMA considers published human data as sufficient. The USA will consider published data only in a supportive capacity because the underlying data is not available for review, and thus, it cannot be confirmed that proper methodology was used.


Given that, for an ANDA I would say you have to re-invent the wheel. Good luck manufacturing the IV formulation according to cGMP. Ask the OGD what a “sufficient number of subjects” is.


  • Cardot J-M, García Arieta A, Paixão P, Taševská I, Davit B. Implementing the Biopharmaceutics Classification System in Drug Development: Reconciling Similarities, Differences, and Shared Challenges in the EMA and US-FDA-Recommended Approaches. AAPS J. 2016;18(4):1039–46. doi:10.1208/s12248-016-9915-0.

Cheers,
Helmut Schütz
[image]

The quality of responses received is directly proportional to the quality of the question asked. ☼
Science Quotes
sameep
Junior

India,
2018-01-02 09:35

@ Helmut
Posting: # 18132
Views: 1,328
 

 Comparative BA study vs Biowaiver for BCS I

Dear Helmut,

» Given that, for an ANDA I would say you have to re-invent the wheel.

That was the first impression. Thanks for confirming.

So, its better to conduct a comparative bioavailability study for BCS I, rather than biowaiver approach. :-)
Back to the forum Activity
 Thread view
Bioequivalence and Bioavailability Forum |  Admin contact
18,698 posts in 3,983 threads, 1,234 registered users;
online 15 (0 registered, 15 guests [including 7 identified bots]).

When puzzled, it never hurts to read the primary documents –
a rather simple and self-evident principle that has, nonetheless,
completely disappeared from large sectors
of the American experience.    Stephen Jay Gould

The BIOEQUIVALENCE / BIOAVAILABILITY FORUM is hosted by
BEBAC Ing. Helmut Schütz
HTML5 RSS Feed