Improved Bioequivalence Assessment of Topical Dermatological Drug Products Using Dermatopharmacokinetics
- 677 Downloads
A dermatopharmacokinetic (DPK) approach, in which drug levels in the stratum corneum (SC) are measured as a function of time post-application and post-removal of the product using tape-strip sampling in vivo in humans, has been considered for the comparative assessment of topical bioavailability. Its application to-date has been limited by contradictory results and concerns that variability in the method necessitates large numbers of treatment sites and volunteers. The objective of this study was to test whether a revised protocol could better assess bioequivalence.
A blinded study of three 1% econazole nitrate cream products, for which the SC is the site of action, was conducted to examine several modifications to the DPK methodology. In addition to protocol changes designed to reduce experimental variability, bioequivalence was assessed at a single uptake time and a single clearance time measured in duplicate in each subject.
Conclusive determinations of bioequivalence were achieved with only four treatment sites per product in each of 14 volunteers, which was less than one-third the number required in a previous DPK investigation.
Comparative bioequivalence can be assessed conclusively with fewer treatment sites in fewer subjects with robust methods that should be less sensitive to inter-laboratory differences.
KEY WORDSdermatopharmacokinetics econazole skin stratum corneum tape stripping topical drug bioequivalence
We acknowledge support from the FDA. No endorsement from the FDA or US government should be inferred.
- 1.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 Draft Guidance, June 1998, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Food and Drug Administration, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER), (1998).Google Scholar
- 2.US FDA. Guidance for industry on special protocol assessment; availability. Fed. Regist. 67:35122 (2002).Google Scholar
- 3.L. K. Pershing. Bioequivalence assessment of three 0.025% tretinoin gel products: Dermatopharmacokinetic vs. Clinical Trial Methods, Transcribed presentation to the Advisory Committee for Pharmaceutical Sciences Meeting, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER), Food and Drug Administration (FDA), Rockville, MD, November 29, 2001; presentation slides available at http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/ac/01/slides/3804s2_02_Pershing/index.htm; transcript of presentation available at http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/ac/01/transcripts/3804t2_01_Morning_Session.pdf pp. 31–47
- 4.T. J. Franz. Study #1, Avita Gel 0.025% vs Retin-A Gel 0.025%, Transcribed presentation, Advisory Committee for Pharmaceutical Sciences Meeting, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER), Food and Drug Administration (FDA), Rockville, MD, November 29, 2001; presentation slides available at http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/ac/01/slides/3804s2_03_franz.pdf transcript of presentation available at http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/ac/01/transcripts/ 3804t2_01_Morning_Session.pdf pp. 47–61
- 5.D. P. Conner. Differences in DPK Methods, Transcribed presentation to the Advisory Committee for Pharmaceutical Sciences Meeting, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER), Food and Drug Administration (FDA), Rockville, MD, November 29, 2001; presentation slides available at http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/ac/01/slides/3804s2_05_conner/index.htm; transcript of presentation available at http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/ac/01/transcripts/3804t2_01_Morning_Session.pdf, pp 71–75
- 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.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 (Revision submitted June 2008).Google Scholar
- 8.W. Navidi, A. Hutchinson, B. N’Dri-Stempfer, and A. L. Bunge. Determining bioequivalence of topical dermatological products by tape-stripping. J. Pharmacokin. Pharmacodyn. Article in press, doi: 10:1007/s10928-008-9091-7 (2008).
- 10.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
- 16.H.-J. Weigmann, U. Lindemann, C. Antoniou, G. N. Tsikrikas, A. I. Stratigos, A. Katsambas, W. Sterry, and J. Lademann. UV/VIS absorbance allows rapid, accurate, and reproducible mass determination of corneocytes removed by tape stripping. Skin Pharmcol. Appl. Skin Physiol. 16:217–227 (2003) Medline. doi: 10.1159/000070844.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 18.L. K. Pershing, S. Bakhtian, C. E. Poncelet, J. L. Corlett, and V. P. Shah. Comparison of skin stripping, in vitro release, and skin blanching response methods to measure dose response and similarity of triamcinolone actonide cream strengths from two manufactured sources. J. Pharm. Sci. 91:1312–1323 (2002) Medline. doi: 10.1002/jps.10147.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 21.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) Medline. doi: 10.1067/mjd.2003.175.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 22.US FDA. Approved drug products with therapeutic equivalence evaluations (Electronic Orange Book), U.S. 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).
- 24.US EPA. Assessing Values to Non-Detected/Non-Quantified Pesticide Residues in Human Health Food Exposure Assessments, Guidance Document: Office of Pesticide Programs, (March 23, 2000), Washington, DC, http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/trac/science/trac3b012.pdf, 2000.
- 25.V. R. Meyer. Practical high-performance liquid chromatography. Wiley, West Sussex, England, 1994.Google Scholar
- 26.J. Corley. Best practice in establishing detection and quantification limits for pesticide residues in foods. In P. W. Lee (ed.), Handbook of Residue Analytical Methods for Agrochemicals, Volumes 1–2, Wiley, West Sussex, England, 2003.Google Scholar
- 27.R. Christinat, and H. W. Zulliger. Stability indicating HPLC-method for the determination of econazole nitrate in cream and lotion formulations. Arzneimittel. forschung/Drug Res. 34:551–553 (1984).Google Scholar
- 32.G. E. P. Box, and D. R. Cox. An analysis of transformations. J. R. Stat. Soc., Series B. 26:211–252 (1964).Google Scholar