Skip to main content
Log in

A Simple Approach for Comparing the In Vitro Dissolution Profiles of Highly Variable Drug Products: a Proposal

  • Research Article
  • Published:
The AAPS Journal Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

When in vitro dissolution profile variability prohibits the use of the F2 metric, there currently is no satisfactory alternative available. Published reports evaluating alternative approaches such as Multivariate Statistical Distance and use of a bootstrap F2 identify sources of bias that can limit the utility of these alternatives. Within veterinary medicine, an additional complication is the potential magnitude of interlot variability associated with dosage forms containing “natural” ingredients. In situations when both interlot and intralot variability need to be factored in the test and reference profile comparison, we designed a method that integrates such concepts as F2, USP S1 and S2 criteria and statistical tolerance limits. Unlike F2, this alternative approach integrates a statistical confidence into the determination through the use of tolerance limits about the reference product profile. Moreover, while differences in product variability, along with differences in mean profiles, will influence the comparability assessment, this method does not impose the need to confirm homogeneity of variances: there is not direct statistical comparison of test versus reference dissolution data. For more typical situations when interlot variability is not a concern, the F2 component can be omitted from the profile comparison. Lastly, by being a model-independent approach, we avoid the potential for introducing error into the comparability determination due either to model misspecification or problems associated with a lack of collinearity. This manuscript details this alternative approach and the results of performance characterization efforts to illustrate its behavior under a range of potential situations.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. When the highest % dissolved falls below 85%, there is a risk for under-estimating the differences in mean profiles of the products using the F2 metric. For example, if the highest reference value is 50% dissolved and the average % difference between test and reference profiles is 7.5%, the F2 would exceed 50 and therefore the profiles would be considered equivalent. However, when we double the % dissolved of the test and reference at all timepoints (normalization to obtain ref. = 100% dissolved), the average difference between the test and reference profiles is 15% and the F2 value falls below 50. This is a known intrinsic issue for the F2 metric when applied to % dissolved data.

References

  1. FDA Guidance for Industry, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research: Dissolution Testing of Immediate Release Solid Oral Dosage Forms. Published online: 08/1997. http://www.fda.gov/downloads/Drugs/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/Guidances/UCM070237.pdf.

  2. Mangas-Sanjuan V, Colon-Useche S, Gonzalez-Alvarez I, Bermejo M, Garcia-Arieta A. Assessment of the regulatory methods for the comparison of highly variable dissolution profiles. AAPS J. 2016;18:1550–61.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Cardot JM, Roudier B, Schütz H. Dissolution comparisons using a multivariate statistical distance (MSD) test and a comparison of various approaches for calculating the measurements of dissolution profile comparison. AAPS J. 2017;19:1091–101.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Paixão P, Gouveia LF, Silva N, Morais JA. Evaluation of dissolution profile similarity - comparison between the F(2), the multivariate statistical distance and the f(2) bootstrapping methods. Eur J Pharm Biopharm. 2017;112:67–74.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Zhai S, Mathew T, Huang Y. Comparison of drug dissolution profiles: a proposal based on tolerance limits. Stat Med. 2016;35:5464–76.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Diaz DA, Colgan ST, Langer CS, Bandi NT, Likar MD, Van Alstine L. Dissolution similarity requirements: how similar or dissimilar are the global regulatory expectations? AAPS J. 2016;18(1):15–22.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. FDA. Martinez MN, In vitro Bioequivalence (BE) Pathways. http://www.fda.gov/downloads/AnimalVeterinary/NewsEvents/WorkshopsConferencesMeetings/UCM444127.pdf Accessed 05–30-18.

  8. Howe WG. Two-sided tolerance limits for normal populations—some improvements. J Am Stat Assoc. 1969;64:610–20.

    Google Scholar 

  9. SAS/QC 9.2: User’s Guide, 2nd Edition. Chapter 5, pp 405–417. SAS Institute Inc. 2010. Cary, NC.

  10. Hahn GJ. Statistical intervals for a normal population part I. Tables, examples and applications. J Qual Technol. 1970;2:115–25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. FDA Guidance for Industry: Statistical Approaches to Establishing Bioequivalence. 2001. http://www.fda.gov/downloads/Drugs/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/Guidances/UCM070244.pdf.

  12. Qiu J, Martinez M, Tiwari R. Evaluating in vivo-in vitro correlation using a Bayesian approach. AAPS J. 2016;18:619–34.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Marilyn N. Martinez.

Electronic Supplementary Material

ESM 1

(DOCX 560 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Martinez, M.N., Zhao, X. A Simple Approach for Comparing the In Vitro Dissolution Profiles of Highly Variable Drug Products: a Proposal. AAPS J 20, 78 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1208/s12248-018-0238-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1208/s12248-018-0238-1

KEY WORDS

Navigation