Ghannam86
☆    

Jordan,
2014-06-21 03:05
(4388 d 05:05 ago)

Posting: # 13109
Views: 6,570
 

 Smoking in bio­equi­va­lence studies [Regulatives / Guidelines]

Dear All,

I would like to know if there is any regulations in FDA regarding including smoking subjects in bioequivalence studies. I would like to know if there are any points to consider in the protocol.

Regards,
Helmut
★★★
avatar
Homepage
Vienna, Austria,
2014-06-21 14:56
(4387 d 17:14 ago)

@ Ghannam86
Posting: # 13114
Views: 5,930
 

 Smoking in bioequivalence studies

Hi Ghannam,

❝ I would like to know if there is any regulations in FDA regarding including smoking subjects in bioequivalence studies.


Were you too lazy to read FDA’s guidances and do you want us to explore them for you in­stead?

Nothing about the smoking status is stated in the general guidances:
  • [image] March 2003
      This guidance recommends that in vivo BE studies be conducted in individuals representative of the general population, taking into account age, sex, and race.
  • December 2013 Draft
      In vivo BE study subjects should be representative of the general population, taking into account age, sex, and race.
The CDC estimated in 2012 18.1% of all adults (aged 18 years or older) in the USA to smoke ciga­rettes. Cigarette smoking is more common among men (20.5%) than women (15.8%).
Are 18.1% a relevant part of the general population? I would say so.1 Or the other way ’round: Are the 81.9% non-smokers representative of the general population? Given that, I don’t see a rationale to ex­clude smokers from BE-studies in a crossover design performed for the FDA (whereas the EMA pre­fers non-smokers – without giving a justification). AFAIK, in none of FDA’s product-specific guid­ances anything is mentioned about smoking (I checked the usual suspects; see below).

An excerpt from Imre Klebovich’s last month’s presentation2 in Budapest:

Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) are potent inducers of the hepatic cytochrome P450 (CYP) iso­forms 1A1, 1A2, and possibly 2E1. Of these, 1A2 is the most important. Some drugs affected by in­duc­tion of CYP1A2 (i.e., increased metabolism): Clo­zapine, flu­vox­amine, olan­za­pine, tacrine, theoph­yl­line, coumarins (including warfarin). Examples:
───────────────────────────────────────────────────
   Drug       Metabol. pathways   ↑ CL %   ↓ AUC % 
───────────────────────────────────────────────────
Theophylline  1A2, 3A4            60–100   10fold  
Tacrine       1A2                   NA     10fold  
Clo­zapine     1A2, 2C19, 3A4        NA       50    
Moxiletine    1A2, 2D6              25       NA    
Olanzapine    1A2, 2C19, 2D6        98       NA    
───────────────────────────────────────────────────

Nicotine is an inhibitor of the OCT2-transporter in the kidneys. Therefore, in smokers higher con­cen­tra­tions were reported for the OCT2-substrate cimetidine.



❝ I would like to know if there are any points to consider in the protocol.


If the drug is neither metabolized by one of the CYPs mentioned above nor a substrate of OCT2, smok­ing status is simply irrelevant in BE. Even for affected drugs in crossover studies any PK-inter­action would mean out (within-subject comparison). However, the between-subject variability would be substantially larger than in a BE-study per­formed in non-smokers. Hence, the bioanalytical method must be capable dealing with a wider range of con­cen­tra­tions.
For obvious reasons parallel studies of affected drugs should be per­formed in non-smokers only.

If you opt for a study in non-smokers, perform a cotinine-test. It is insufficient to rely on subjects’ statements.3 Nicotine withdrawal induces stress, which may play havoc on liver blood-flow. Not a good idea.


  1. Compare this to the 12.6% “Black or African Americans” (USA Census 2010). “Race” is spe­cif­ically mentioned in the guidances…
  2. I Klebovich
    Drug Interactions – Alcohol, Smoking and Caffeine
    In: Klebovich I and VP Shah (ed’s), Progress Towards Tommorrow’s Future – Advances in Regu­la­tory Science Beyond Bio­equi­va­lence. Presentations of 4th International Regulatory Workshop on A to Z on Bioequivalence, Bioanalysis, Dissolution and Bio­simi­larity.
    Arrabona Print, Győr 2014, pp 159–70. ISBN 978-615-5270-09-03
  3. Доверяй, но проверяй (Russian proverb: Trust, but verify)

Dif-tor heh smusma 🖖🏼 Довге життя Україна! [image]
Helmut Schütz
[image]

The quality of responses received is directly proportional to the quality of the question asked. 🚮
Science Quotes
Ghannam86
☆    

Jordan,
2014-06-22 02:04
(4387 d 06:06 ago)

@ Helmut
Posting: # 13115
Views: 5,482
 

 Smoking in bioequivalence studies

Dear Hemlet,

thanks a lot for the comprehensive answer. I really appreciate that.

Actually I have read the guidance documents but I thought that I may use the experience of the people in the forum.

There I no much data regarding the metabolic pathway for the molecule. I will try to find more articles related to that.

I would like to know what is your opinion in case of having a failed bioequivalence study (Passed Cmax and failed AUC). What are the reasons behind that. I have calculated the absorption rate constant for the two treatments (test and reference) and they were the same. API is BCS class IV. Reference scaled was the applied design,

Another thing to clarify, is it possible to widen the acceptance criteria limit for AUC? I mean to be larger than 80-125 %.

Regards,
Helmut
★★★
avatar
Homepage
Vienna, Austria,
2014-06-22 02:22
(4387 d 05:48 ago)

@ Ghannam86
Posting: # 13116
Views: 5,585
 

 More information, please

Hi Ghannam,

❝ Dear Hemlet,

      ↑↑↑↑↑↑↑ Helmut, if you don’t mind.


❝ […] failed bioequivalence study (Passed Cmax and failed AUC). What are the reasons behind that.


No idea. Bad luck (aka producer’s risk)? Can you give us some data?

❝ Reference scaled was the applied design,


That’s not a design, but a method to assess BE. Was it a partially (TRR|RTR|RRT) or a fully replicated design (TRTR|RTRT or TRT|RTR)? Expected CVs for AUC and Cmax and their assumed T/R-ratios? Planned power? Expected drop-out rate? Sample size? Completed subjects? :blahblah:

❝ […] is it possible to widen the acceptance criteria limit for AUC? I mean to be larger than 80-125 %.


Given what you wrote in your OP I assume you are talking about FDA’s rules. For the FDA you don’t expand the acceptance range (like in EMA’s ABEL), but have to apply “Reference-Scaled Average Bioequivalence” (RSABE). To pass BE, both conditions have to be fulfilled:
  1. The 95% upper confidence limit for (YT – YR)2 – θ·s²WR must be ≤0, and
  2. the PE of the Test/Reference geometric mean ratio must be ⊆ [0.8000, 1.2500].
If CVWR ≥30% (sWR ≥0.294) you may apply RSABE to AUC as well. For details see FDA’s pro­gesterone guidance.

Dif-tor heh smusma 🖖🏼 Довге життя Україна! [image]
Helmut Schütz
[image]

The quality of responses received is directly proportional to the quality of the question asked. 🚮
Science Quotes
UA Flag
Activity
 Admin contact
23,655 posts in 4,993 threads, 1,571 registered users;
167 visitors (0 registered, 167 guests [including 42 identified bots]).
Forum time: 08:10 CEST (Europe/Vienna)

Ignorance more frequently begets confidence
than does knowledge.    Charles Darwin

The Bioequivalence and Bioavailability Forum is hosted by
BEBAC Ing. Helmut Schütz
HTML5