Pharmaceutical Research

, Volume 25, Issue 7, pp 1621–1630 | Cite as

Optimizing Metrics for the Assessment of Bioequivalence Between Topical Drug Products

  • Berthe N’Dri-Stempfer
  • William C. Navidi
  • Richard H. Guy
  • Annette L. Bunge
Research Paper

Abstract

Purpose

Stratum corneum tape stripping post-application of a drug product followed by analysis of the active agent in this tissue layer is an approach being seriously considered for the comparative assessment of topical bioavailability. Key issues revolve around how best to perform this experiment and interpret the data.

Methods

Using previously published results from a comparative study of three 0.025% tretinoin gel products, alternative data analysis approaches are presented that may render the technique more accessible to the evaluation of new and generic topical dosage forms.

Results

For the tretinoin gel study, the conclusions for bioequivalence from measurements of drug levels at only one uptake and one clearance time were the same as those from the original study, which required measurements at eight different treatment times. Furthermore, comparisons of drug levels at one uptake and one clearance time discriminated differences in bioequivalence for clearance and uptake, which had previously been missed. Half-life estimates, derived from time course data of drug clearance, can be related to lag time for drug penetration through the SC.

Conclusions

This new data analysis demonstrates that comparative bioequivalence might be assessed more easily.

KEY WORDS

dermatopharmacokinetics skin stratum corneum tape stripping topical drug bioequivalence 

References

  1. 1.
    V. P. Shah, G. L. Flynn, A. Yacobi, H. I. Maibach, C. Bon, N. M. Fleischer, T. J. Franz, S. A. Kaplan, J. Kawamoto, L. J. Lesko, J.-P. Marty, L. K. Pershing, H. Schaefer, J. A. Sequeira, S. P. Shrivastave, J. Wilkins, and R. L. Williams. Bioequivalence of topical dermatological dosage forms—methods of evaluation of bioequivalence. Pharm. Res. 15:167–171 (1998).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    US FDA. Guidance for Industry: topical dermatological drug product NDAs and ANDAs-in vivo bioavilability, bioequivalence, in vitro release, and associated studies. Draft Guidance, June 1998, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Food and Drug Administration, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER), 1998.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    L. K. Pershing, J. L. Nelson, J. L. Corlett, S. P. Shrivastave, D. B. Hare, and V. P. Shah. Assessment of dermatopharmacokinetic approach in the bioequivalence determination of topical tretinoin gel products. J Am Acad Dermatol. 48:740–751 (2003).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    L. K. Pershing. Final Report to Food and Drug Administration (FDA): Dermatopharmacokinetic Bioequivalence Study on Three Tretinoin Gel, 0.025% Products, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, 2000.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    US FDA. Guidance for industry on special protocol assessment; availability. Fed. Reg. 67:35122 (2002).Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    A. L. Bunge, B. N’Dri-Stempfer, W. C. Navidi, and R. H. Guy. Dermatopharmacokinetics: Improvement of Methodology for Assessing Bioequivalence of Topical Dermatological Drug Products, Revised Final Report, Award No. D3921303, Submitted to Department of Health and Human Services, Food and Drug Administration, Colorado School of Mines, Golden, CO, September 2, 2006.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    A. L. Bunge, B. N’Dri-Stempfer, W. C. Navidi, and R. H. Guy. Therapeutic Equivalence of Topical Products, Final Report, Award No. 223-04-3004, Submitted to Department of Health and Human Services, Food and Drug Administration, Colorado School of Mines, Golden, CO, January 30, 2007.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    L. K. Pershing. Bioequivalence Assessment of three 0.025% tretinoin gel products: Dermatopharmacokinetic vs. Clinical Trial Methods. Advisory Committee for Pharmaceutical Sciences Meeting, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER), Food and Drug Administration (FDA), Rockville, MD, 2001.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    T. J. Franz. Study #1, Avita Gel 0.025% vs Retin-A Gel 0.025%, Advisory Committee for Pharmaceutical Sciences Meeting, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER), Food and Drug Administration (FDA), Rockville, MD, 2001.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    D. P. Conner. Differences in DPK Methods. Advisory Committee for Pharmaceutical Sciences Meeting, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER), Food and Drug Administration (FDA), Rockville, MD, 2001. http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/ac/01/slides/3804s2_05_conner/index.htm, pp 71–75 in transcript.
  11. 11.
    I. Alberti, Y. Kalia, A. Naik, J.-D. Bonny, and R. H. Guy. In vivo assessment of enhanced topical delivery of terbinafine to human stratum corneum. J Control. Release. 71:319–327 (2001).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    I. Alberti, Y. N. Kalia, A. Naik, J. D. Bonny, and R. H. Guy. Assessment and prediction of the cutaneous bioavailability of topical terbinafine in vivo. Pharm. Res. 18:1472–1475 (2001).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    I. Alberti, Y. N. Kalia, A. Naik, J.-D. Bonny, and R. H. Guy. Effect of ethanol and isopropyl myristate on the availability of topical terbinafine in human stratum corneum, in vivo. Int. J. Pharm 219:11–19 (2001).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    F. Pirot, Y. N. Kalia, A. L. Stinchcomb, G. Keating, A. Bunge, and R. H. Guy. Characterization of the permeability barrier of human skin in vivo. Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. USA. 94:1562–1567 (1997).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    M. B. Reddy, A. L. Stinchcomb, R. H. Guy, and A. L. Bunge. Determining dermal absorption parameters in vivo from tape stripping data. Pharm. Res. 19:292–297 (2002).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    R. J. Scheuplein, and I. H. Blank. Permeability of the skin. Physiol. Rev. 51:702–747 (1971).PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    M. S. Roberts, and K. A. Walters. The relationship between structure and barrier function of skin. In M. S. Roberts, and K. A. Walters (eds.), Dermal Absorption and Toxicity Assessment, Vol 91., Drugs and the Pharmaceutical Sciences, Marcel Dekker, New York, 1998, pp. 1–42.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    J. Hadgraft. Skin, the final frontier. Int. J. Pharm. 224:1–18 (2001).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    E. Kreyszig. Advanced Engineering Mathematics. 8th Edition, Wiley, New York, NY, 1999.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    D. J. Schuirmann. A comparison of the two one-sided tests procedure and the power approach for assessing the equivalence of average bioavailability. J. Pharmacokinet. Biopharm. 15:657–680 (1987).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    US FDA. Avita Gel (Tretinoin Gel), NDA Application No.: 20-400. http://www.fda.gov/cder/foi/nda/98/20400.htm, 1998.
  22. 22.
    US FDA. Approved drug products with therapeutic equivalence evaluations (Electronic Orange Book), US Department of Health and Human Services, Food and Drug Administration, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Office of Pharmaceutical Science, Office of Generic Drugs. http://www.fda.gov/cder/orange/obannual.pdf, 2007.
  23. 23.
    L. K. Pershing, J. L. Corlett, and J. L. Nelson. Comparison of dermatopharmacokinetic vs. clinical efficacy methods for bioequivalence assessment of miconazole nitrate vaginal cream, 2% in humans. Pharm. Res. 19:270–277 (2002).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    A. L. Bunge, R. L. Cleek, and B. E. Vecchia. A new method for estimating dermal absorption from chemical exposure. 3. Compared with steady-state methods for prediction and data analysis. Pharm. Res. 12:972–982 (1995).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    R. L. Cleek, and A. L. Bunge. A new method for estimating dermal absorption from chemical exposure. 1. General approach. Pharm. Res. 10:497–506 (1993).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Berthe N’Dri-Stempfer
    • 1
  • William C. Navidi
    • 2
  • Richard H. Guy
    • 3
  • Annette L. Bunge
    • 1
  1. 1.Chemical Engineering DepartmentColorado School of MinesGoldenUSA
  2. 2.Mathematical and Computer Science DepartmentColorado School of MinesGoldenUSA
  3. 3.University of BathBathUK

Personalised recommendations