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.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
Zhai S, Mathew T, Huang Y. Comparison of drug dissolution profiles: a proposal based on tolerance limits. Stat Med. 2016;35:5464–76.
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.
FDA. Martinez MN, In vitro Bioequivalence (BE) Pathways. http://www.fda.gov/downloads/AnimalVeterinary/NewsEvents/WorkshopsConferencesMeetings/UCM444127.pdf Accessed 05–30-18.
Howe WG. Two-sided tolerance limits for normal populations—some improvements. J Am Stat Assoc. 1969;64:610–20.
SAS/QC 9.2: User’s Guide, 2nd Edition. Chapter 5, pp 405–417. SAS Institute Inc. 2010. Cary, NC.
Hahn GJ. Statistical intervals for a normal population part I. Tables, examples and applications. J Qual Technol. 1970;2:115–25.
FDA Guidance for Industry: Statistical Approaches to Establishing Bioequivalence. 2001. http://www.fda.gov/downloads/Drugs/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/Guidances/UCM070244.pdf.
Qiu J, Martinez M, Tiwari R. Evaluating in vivo-in vitro correlation using a Bayesian approach. AAPS J. 2016;18:619–34.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Electronic Supplementary Material
ESM 1
(DOCX 560 kb)
Rights and permissions
About this article
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
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1208/s12248-018-0238-1