Literature DB >> 20131983

Demonstrating Bioequivalence of Locally Acting Orally Inhaled Drug Products (OIPs): Workshop Summary Report.

Wallace P Adams1, Richard C Ahrens, Mei-Ling Chen, David Christopher, Badrul A Chowdhury, Dale P Conner, Richard Dalby, Kevin Fitzgerald, Leslie Hendeles, Anthony J Hickey, Günther Hochhaus, Beth L Laube, Paul Lucas, Sau L Lee, Svetlana Lyapustina, Bing Li, Dennis O'Connor, Neil Parikh, David A Parkins, Prasad Peri, Gary R Pitcairn, Michael Riebe, Partha Roy, Tushar Shah, Gur Jai Pal Singh, Sandra Suarez Sharp, Julie D Suman, Marjolein Weda, Janet Woodcock, Lawrence Yu.   

Abstract

This March 2009 Workshop Summary Report was sponsored by Product Quality Research Institute (PQRI) based on a proposal by the Inhalation and Nasal Technology Focus Group (INTFG) of the American Association of Pharmaceutical Scientists (AAPS). Participants from the pharmaceutical industry, academia and regulatory bodies from the United States, Europe, India, and Brazil attended the workshop with the objective of presenting, reviewing, and discussing recommendations for demonstrating bioequivalence (BE) that may be considered in the development of orally inhaled drug products and regulatory guidances for new drug applications (NDAs), abbreviated NDAs (ANDAs), and postapproval changes. The workshop addressed areas related to in vitro approaches to demonstrating BE, biomarker strategies, imaging techniques, in vivo approaches to establishing local delivery equivalence and device design similarity. The workshop presented material that provided a baseline for the current understanding of orally inhaled drug products (OIPs) and identified gaps in knowledge and consensus that, if answered, might allow the design of a robust, streamlined method for the BE assessment of locally acting inhalation drugs. These included the following: (1) cascade impactor (CI) studies are not a good 2 predictor of the pulmonary dose; more detailed studies on in vitro/in vivo correlations (e.g., suitability of CI studies for assessing differences in the regional deposition) are needed; (2) there is a lack of consensus on the appropriate statistical methods for assessing in vitro results; (3) fully validated and standardized imaging methods, while capable of providing information on pulmonary dose and regional deposition, might not be applicable to the BE of inhaled products mainly due to the problems of having access to radiolabeled innovator product; (4) if alternatives to current methods for establishing local delivery BE of OIPs cannot be established, biomarkers (pharmacodynamic or clinical endpoints) with a sufficiently steep dose-response need to be identified and validated for all relevant drug classes; and (5) the utility of pharmacokinetic studies for evaluating "local pulmonary delivery" equivalence deserves more attention. A summary of action items for seminars and working groups to address these topics in the future is also presented.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2010        PMID: 20131983     DOI: 10.1089/jamp.2009.0803

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Aerosol Med Pulm Drug Deliv        ISSN: 1941-2711            Impact factor:   2.849


  11 in total

1.  A Systematic Analysis of the Sensitivity of Plasma Pharmacokinetics to Detect Differences in the Pulmonary Performance of Inhaled Fluticasone Propionate Products Using a Model-Based Simulation Approach.

Authors:  Benjamin Weber; Guenther Hochhaus
Journal:  AAPS J       Date:  2015-05-02       Impact factor: 4.009

Review 2.  In Vitro Testing for Orally Inhaled Products: Developments in Science-Based Regulatory Approaches.

Authors:  Ben Forbes; Per Bäckman; David Christopher; Myrna Dolovich; Bing V Li; Beth Morgan
Journal:  AAPS J       Date:  2015-05-05       Impact factor: 4.009

3.  Regulatory Considerations for Approval of Generic Inhalation Drug Products in the US, EU, Brazil, China, and India.

Authors:  Sau L Lee; Bhawana Saluja; Alfredo García-Arieta; Gustavo Mendes Lima Santos; Ying Li; Sarah Lu; Shuguang Hou; Juliet Rebello; Abhijit Vaidya; Jaideep Gogtay; Shrinivas Purandare; Svetlana Lyapustina
Journal:  AAPS J       Date:  2015-05-23       Impact factor: 4.009

4.  Pharmacokinetics of Orally Inhaled Drug Products.

Authors:  Günther Hochhaus; Stephen Horhota; Leslie Hendeles; Sandra Suarez; Juliet Rebello
Journal:  AAPS J       Date:  2015-03-12       Impact factor: 4.009

5.  In Vivo-Relevant Transwell Dish-Based Dissolution Testing for Orally Inhaled Corticosteroid Products.

Authors:  Masahiro Sakagami; Hua Li; Jügen Venitz
Journal:  Pharm Res       Date:  2019-05-09       Impact factor: 4.200

6.  Introduction: Aerosol delivery of orally inhaled agents.

Authors:  Timothy E Corcoran; Sunalene G Devadason; Philip J Kuehl
Journal:  J Aerosol Med Pulm Drug Deliv       Date:  2012-12       Impact factor: 2.849

7.  Inhalation devices and patient interface: human factors.

Authors:  Stefan Leiner; David Parkins; Orest Lastow
Journal:  AAPS J       Date:  2015-01-16       Impact factor: 4.009

8.  Methacholine challenge as a clinical bioassay of pulmonary delivery of a long-acting β₂-adrenergic agonist.

Authors:  Sreekala Prabhakaran; Jonathan Shuster; Richard Ahrens; Leslie Hendeles
Journal:  Pharmacotherapy       Date:  2011-05       Impact factor: 4.705

9.  In Vitro, Pharmacokinetic, Pharmacodynamic, and Safety Comparisons of Single and Combined Administration of Tiotropium and Salmeterol in COPD Patients Using Different Dry Powder Inhalers.

Authors:  Stephen T Horhota; Jan A van Noord; Cynthia B Verkleij; Loek J Bour; Ashish Sharma; Michael Trunk; Piet J G Cornelissen
Journal:  AAPS J       Date:  2015-03-21       Impact factor: 4.009

10.  Pharmacokinetic studies for proving bioequivalence of orally inhaled drug products-critical issues and concepts.

Authors:  Karan Thakkar; Suyog Mhatre; Manish Jadhav; Sailendra Goswami; Rajen Shah
Journal:  Front Pharmacol       Date:  2015-06-03       Impact factor: 5.810

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.