1 / 19

Bioequivalence of Highly Variable Drugs: Regulatory Perspectives

Bioequivalence of Highly Variable Drugs: Regulatory Perspectives. Sam H. Haidar, R.Ph., Ph.D. Pharmacometrics Office of Generic Drugs. Potential Advantages. Reduction in regulatory burden Facilitate market access for highly variable but safe and effective drugs

benjamin
Télécharger la présentation

Bioequivalence of Highly Variable Drugs: Regulatory Perspectives

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Bioequivalence of Highly Variable Drugs: Regulatory Perspectives Sam H. Haidar, R.Ph., Ph.D. Pharmacometrics Office of Generic Drugs

  2. Potential Advantages • Reduction in regulatory burden • Facilitate market access for highly variable but safe and effective drugs • Make it easier to approve a generic drug product which is significantly less variable than the reference listed drug

  3. Current BE* RequirementsMajor Regulatory Agencies • U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) • Health Canada • Committee for Proprietary Medicinal Products (CPMP), Europe • National Institute of Health Sciences (NIHS), Japan *BE = Bioequivalence

  4. Current BE Requirements FDA* • AUC: 90% Confidence Interval Limits 80-125% • Cmax: 90% Confidence Interval Limits 80-125% • Criteria applied to drugs of low and high variability *Guidance for Industry: Bioavailability and Bioequivalence Studies for Orally Administered Drug Products- General Considerations

  5. Current BE Requirements Health Canada • AUC: 90% Confidence Interval Limits 80-125% • Cmax: Mean T/R ratio (point estimate) between 80-125% • Criteria judged flexible enough to deal with highly variable drugs* *Expert Advisory Committee on Bioavailability and Bioequivalence, June 26 – 27, 2003.

  6. Current BE Requirements CPMP* • AUC: 90% Confidence Interval Limits 80-125% • Cmax: 90% Confidence Interval Limits 80-125% • Cmax: “In certain cases a wider interval is acceptable (e.g., 75-133%) *Note for Guidance on the Investigation of Bioavailability and Bioequivalence, January 2002

  7. Current BE Requirements NIHS (Japan)* • AUC: 90% Confidence Interval Limits 80-125% • Cmax: 90% Confidence Interval Limits 80-125% • In cases of failure, add-on studies are acceptable (provided other criteria are met) *Guideline for Bioequivalence Studies of Generic Drugs, December 22, 1997.

  8. Performance of FDA Criteria • Survey of ANDA Applications (1996-2001) • Evaluated distribution of Cmax and AUC T/R mean ratios (point estimates)

  9. Summary • Although criteria allows for a mean difference of ± 20%, the vast majority of submissions were within ± 10% • This was also true with regard to highly variable drugs and drug products • Additional confirmation of greater variability associated with Cmax

  10. Available OptionsBioequivalence of Highly Variable Drugs • Scaling based on intra-subject variability (Cmax, AUC) • Expansion of regulatory limits

  11. Scaling Approaches • Reduction in sample size • Limits are defined by degree of variability • Need for point estimate constraint?

  12. Expansion of Limits • Cmax only, or Cmax and AUC • Fixed Limits (e.g., 70 – 143%) for drugs meeting high variability “criterion” • Need for point estimate constraint? • Major concern: How to classify borderline drugs and drug products

  13. Expansion of LimitsStudy: Hauck et al.* • AUC: 90% Confidence Interval Limits 80-125% • Cmax: 90% Confidence Interval Limits 70-143% • Outcome: Sample size reduced by 60% • Cmax ratios of 128% could pass using the 70-143% limit *Hauck et al. Int J Clin Pharm Ther. 39 (8) pp. 350-355 (2001)

  14. Conclusion • If a need to make changes in the regulations is concluded: • Either approach would result in significant reduction in sample size • Additional criterion constraining point estimates may be needed • Based on prior experience, clustering around a T/R ratio of 1 would be expected for a modified BE criteria for highly variable drugs

  15. Q & A • Dale Conner, Pharm.D.

More Related