The AAPS Journal

, Volume 15, Issue 4, pp 974–990 | Cite as

International Guidelines for Bioequivalence of Systemically Available Orally Administered Generic Drug Products: A Survey of Similarities and Differences

  • Barbara Davit
  • April C. Braddy
  • Dale P. Conner
  • Lawrence X. Yu
Review Article Theme:Human and Veterinary Therapeutics: Interspecies Extrapolations and Shared Challenges

Abstract

The objective of this article is to discuss the similarities and differences among bioequivalence approaches used by international regulatory authorities when reviewing applications for marketing new generic drug products which are systemically active and intended for oral administration. We focused on the 13 jurisdictions and organizations participating in the International Generic Drug Regulators Pilot. These are Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, Chinese Taipei, the European Medicines Association, Japan, Mexico, Singapore, South Korea, Switzerland, the USA, and the World Health Organization. We began with a comparison of how the various jurisdictions and organizations define a generic product and its corresponding reference product. We then compared the following bioequivalence approaches: recommended bioequivalence study designs, method of pharmacokinetic calculations and bioequivalence acceptance limits, recommendations for modifying bioequivalence study designs and limits for highly variable drugs and narrow therapeutic index drugs, provisions for waiving bioequivalence study requirements (granting biowaivers), and implementation of the Biopharmaceutics Classification System. We observed that, overall, there are more similarities than differences in bioequivalence approaches among the regulatory authorities surveyed.

KEY WORDS

bioequivalence biopharmaceutics classification system biowaivers generic drugs regulatory authority 

REFERENCES

  1. 1.
    Understanding generic drugs. US Food and Drug Administration, Silver Spring, 2012. http://www.fda.gov/Drugs/ResourcesForYou/Consumers/BuyingUsingMedicineSafely/UnderstandingGenericDrugs/default.htm. Accessed 5 Apr 2013.
  2. 2.
    Mastan S, Latha TB, Ajay S. The basic regulatory considerations and prospects for conducting bioavailability/bioequivalence studies—an overview. Comp Eff Res. 2011;1:1–25. doi:10.2147/CER.S15861.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Kanfer I. Introduction. In: Kanfer I, Shargel L, editors. Generic drug product development, international regulatory requirements for bioequivalence. New York: Informa Healthcare; 2010. p. 1–16.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Electronic orange book. US Food and Drug Administration, Silver Spring. 2012. http://www.fda.gov/downloads/Drugs/DevelopmentApprovalProcess/UCM071436.pdf. Accessed 5 Apr 2013.
  5. 5.
    Guideline, the investigation of bioequivalence. Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use (CHMP), European Medicines Agency (EMA) 2010. http://www.ema.europa.eu/docs/en_GB/document_library/Scientific_guideline/2010/01/WC500070039.pdf. Accessed 5 Apr 2013.
  6. 6.
    US Government Printing Office. Federal Food Drugs and Cosmetic Act. Drugs and devices. Chapter 9, Section 355(j)(8)(B)(i). Title 21 United States Code. 2011.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Chen ML, Shah V, Patnaik R, Adams W, Hussain A, Conner D, et al. Bioavailability and bioequivalence: an FDA regulatory overview. Pharm Res. 2001;18:1645–50.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    US Food and Drug Administration Response to Dockets No. FDA-2010-P-0111 and FDA-2008-P-9-057, establishing bioequivalence to mesalamine delayed-release tablets and mesalamine extended-release capsules. http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=FDA-2010-P-0111-0011. Accessed 5 Apr 2013.
  9. 9.
    US Food and Drug Administration Response to Docket No. FDA-2012-P-0779, 2012, concerning the bioequivalence requirements applicable to abbreviated new drug applications (ANDAs) referencing acyclovir ointment. http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=FDA-2012-P-0779-005. Accessed 5 Apr 2013.
  10. 10.
    Section 320.22. Criteria for waiver of evidence of in vivo bioavailability or bioequivalence. In: Title 21 of the Code of Federal Regulations. 57 FR; 1992. p. 17998, as amended at 67 FR; 2002. P. 77673.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Guidance for Industry, bioavailability and bioequivalence studies for orally-administered drug products—general considerations. US Department of Health and Human Services Food and Drug Administration Center for Drug Evaluation and Research 2003. http://www.fda.gov/downloads/Drugs/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/Guidances/UCM070124.pdf. Accessed 5 Apr 2013.
  12. 12.
    Mansour G. Experience of regulatory harmonization in Canada: participation in international regulatory cooperation. In: Proceedings of the African Medicines Regulatory Harmonization (AMRH) Stakeholders Consultation, 29 March 2012, Arusha, Tanzania. http://www.amrh.org. Accessed 5 Apr 2013.
  13. 13.
    Pharmaceutical and Medical Devices Agency, Japan. The meeting of IGDRP held December 3 to 4. PMDA Updates, January 2013. http://www.pmda.go.jp/english/international/pdf/update/updates_201301_e.pdf. Accessed 5 April 2013.
  14. 14.
    Australian Regulatory Guideline on Over-the-Counter Medicines (ARGOM) Appendix I, Section 6, generic products. Australian Government Department of Health and Ageing Therapeutic Goods Administration 2012. http://www.tga.gov.au/industry/otc-argom-app1-06-generic.htm. Accessed 5 Apr 2013.
  15. 15.
    Annex, guide for relative bioavailability/bioequivalence tests of medicines, Brazilian National Agency for Sanitary Surveillance (ANVISA) 2003. http://www.anvisa.gov.br/eng/legis/resol/896__29_05_03_re_e.htm. Accessed 5 Apr 2013.
  16. 16.
    Guideline, for bioavailability/bioequivalence studies, Taiwan Department of Health (DOH) Food and Drug Administration 2009. http://www.cde.org.tw/English/Regulations/SubLink/Document%2004.pdf. Accessed 5 Apr 2013.
  17. 17.
    Guidelines for submission of research protocols to demonstrate the drug interchangeabilty. The Mexican Federal Commission for the Protection Against Sanitary Risk (COFEPRIS) 2012. http://www.cofepris.gob.mx/Paginas/Inicio.aspx. Accessed 5 Apr 2013.
  18. 18.
    Guidelines for the implementation of the standard NOM-177-SSA1-1998 establishing tests and procedures for demonstrating that a product is interchangeable. The Mexican Federal Commission for the Protection Against Sanitary Risk (COFEPRIS) 2012. http://www.cofepris.gob.mx/Paginas/Inicio.aspx. Accessed 5 Apr 2013.
  19. 19.
    BABEC Ing. Helmut Schütz, Guidelines and guidance documents, Vienna. http://bebac.at/Guidelines.htm. Accessed 5 Apr 2013.
  20. 20.
    Administrative Ordinance: Application and Authorization for Generics. Swiss Agency for Therapeutic Products (Swissmedic), Geneva, Switzerland 2012. http://www.swissmedic.ch/suchen/index.html. Accessed 5 Apr 2013.
  21. 21.
    Regulatory guidelines on prescription medicines, Appendix 15, Biopharmaceutics studies. Australian Government Department of Health and Ageing, Therapeutic Goods Administration 2012. http://www.tga.gov.au/pdf/pm-argpm-ap15.pdf. Accessed 5 Apr 2013.
  22. 22.
    Hung CT, Ren D, Folland LA, Lam FC, Hung NA, Smart R. Australasia. In: Kanfer I, Shargel L, editors. Generic drug product development, international regulatory requirements for bioequivalence. New York: Informa Healthcare; 2010. p. 17–45.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Marques MRC, Storpitis S, Bueno MM. Brazil. In: Kanfer I, Shargel L, editors. Generic drug product development, international regulatory requirements for bioequivalence. New York: Informa Healthcare; 2010. p. 48–66.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    McGilveray IJ. Canada. In: Kanfer I, Shargel L, editors. Generic drug product development, international regulatory requirements for bioequivalence. New York: Informa Healthcare; 2010. p. 67–94.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Guidance Document, conduct and analysis of comparative bioavailability studies. Health Canada Therapeutic Products Directorate Bureau of Policy, Science, and International Programs 2012. http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/dhp-mps/alt_formats/pdf/prodpharma/applic-demande/guide-ld/bio/gd_cbs_ebc_ld-eng.pdf. Accessed 5 Apr 2013.
  26. 26.
    Guidance: bioavailability and bioequivalence studies for chemical drug products. People’s Republic of China State Food and Drug Administration 2005. http://eng.sfda.gov.cn/WS03/CL0755. Accessed 5 Apr 2013.
  27. 27.
    Pao LH, Chi JF, Hu OYP. Taiwan. In: Kanfer I, Shargel L, editors. Generic drug product development, international regulatory requirements for bioequivalence. New York: Informa Healthcare; 2010. p. 232–53.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Riku J. Japan. In: Kanfer I, Shargel L, editors. Generic drug product development, international regulatory requirements for bioequivalence. New York: Informa Healthcare; 2010. p. 164–82.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    National Institute of Health Sciences Guideline, bioequivalence studies of generic products. Japanese Pharmaceutical and Food Safety Bureau, Minister of Health, Labor and Welfare, 2012 http://www.nihs.go.jp/drug/be-guide(e)/Generic/GL-E_120229_BE.pdf. Accessed 5 Apr 2013.
  30. 30.
    Fandaño AL. New Mexican marketing authorization and data exclusivity regulations. IP in the Life Sciences Industries 2008. http://www.iam-magazine.com/issues/article.ashx?g=49b1bfeb-ca52-4235-a390-8947ceb3287e. Accessed 24 Nov 2012.
  31. 31.
    Mexico’s health law regulations for health consumables, Article 2. XIV, as amended 2 January 2008.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Guidelines, for the conduct and bioavailability and bioequivalence studies. Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) Consultative Committee for Standards and Quality (ACCSQ) Pharmaceutical Product Working Group 2004. http://www.hsa.gov.sg/publish/etc/medialib/hsa_library/health_products_regulation/western_medicines/files_guidelines.Par.59188.File.dat/ACTR_GuidelinesforConductofBioavailabilityandBioequivalenceStudies_Nov05.pdf. Accessed 5 Apr 2013.
  33. 33.
    Guidance document, Bioequivalence study. Korea Food and Drug Administration 2008. http://www.kfda.go.kr/eng/index.do?nMenuCode=5. Accessed 31 Aug 2012.
  34. 34.
    Modifications to the administrative ordinance, instructions: application and authorisation for generics. Swiss Agency for Therapeutic Products (Swissmedic), Geneva, Switzerland. 2012. http://www.swissmedic.ch/zulassungen/00173/01407/index.html?lang=en. Accessed 5 Apr 2013.
  35. 35.
    Multisource (generic) pharmaceutical products; guidelines on registration requirements to establish interchangeability. Annex 7, WHO Technical Report Series, 937, World Health Organization, 2006. http://www.who.int/prequal/info_general/documents/TRS937/WHO_TRS_937_eng.pdf#page=359. Accessed 5 Apr 2013.
  36. 36.
    Mexico Embassy Update on Pharmaceutical IPR Issues in Mexico. August 30 2011. http://dazzlepod.com/cable/07MEXICO3724. Accessed 5 Apr 2013.
  37. 37.
    Interview with Socorro España Lomeli, Executive Director of ANAFAM. Pharmaceutical Industries Focus Reports. http://www.pharma.focusreports.net/index.php#state=InterviewDetail&id=1954. Accessed 5 Apr 2013.
  38. 38.
    Guidance for industry, phenytoin extended capsule. US Department of Health and Human Services Food and Drug Administration Center for Drug Evaluation and Research 2008. http://www.fda.gov/downloads/Drugs/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/Guidances/ucm089476.pdf. Accessed 5 Apr 2013.
  39. 39.
    Draft guidance for industry, rifaximin tablet. US Department of Health and Human Services Food and Drug Administration Center for Drug Evaluation and Research 2011. http://www.fda.gov/downloads/Drugs/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/Guidances/UCM281455.pdf. Accessed 5 Apr 2013.
  40. 40.
    Pocock SJ. Group sequential methods in the design and analysis of clinical trials. Biometrika. 1977;64:191–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Potvin D, DiLiberti CE, Hauck WW, Parr AF, Schuirmann DJ, et al. Sequential design approaches for bioequivalence studies with crossover designs. Pharm Stat. 2008;7:245–62.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Clinical pharmacology review of NDA 21154. Drugs@FDA. US Food and Drug Administration Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Silver Spring, 2001. http://www.accessdata.fda.gov/drugsatfda_docs/nda/2001/21154_Nexium.cfm. Accessed 5 Apr 2013.
  43. 43.
    O’Brien PC, Fleming TR. A multiple testing procedure for clinical trials. Biometrics. 1979;35:549–56.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Concept paper on the revision of the note for guidance on quality of modified-release oral dosage forms and transdermal dosage forms: Section II (pharmacokinetic and clinical evaluation), European Medicines Agency (EMA) Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use (CHMP) 2010. http://www.ema.europa.eu/docs/en_GB/document_library/Scientific_guideline/2010/06/WC500091662.pdf. Accessed 5 Apr 2013.
  45. 45.
    Guidance for Industry, bioequivalence recommendations for specific products. US Department of Health and Human Services Food and Drug Administration Center for Drug Evaluation and Research 2010. http://www.fda.gov/Drugs/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/Guidances/ucm075207.htm. Accessed 5 Apr 2013.
  46. 46.
    Guidance for industry, food-effect bioavailability and fed bioequivalence studies. US Department of Health and Human Services Food and Drug Administration Center for Drug Evaluation and Research 2002. http://www.fda.gov/downloads/Drugs/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/Guidances/UCM070241.pdf. Accessed 5 Apr 2013.
  47. 47.
    Guidance for industry, size of beads in drug products labeled for sprinkle. US Department of Health and Human Services Food and Drug Administration Center for Drug Evaluation and Research 2012. http://www.fda.gov/downloads/Drugs/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/Guidances/UCM240243.pdf. Accessed 5 Apr 2013.
  48. 48.
    Note for Guidance, modified-release oral and transdermal dosage forms: Section II (pharmacokinetic and clinical evaluation). The European Agency for the Evaluation of Medicinal Products Human Medicines Evaluation Unit Committee for Proprietary Medicinal Products (CPMP) 1999. http://www.ema.europa.eu/docs/en_GB/document_library/Scientific_guideline/2009/09/WC500003126.pdf. Accessed 5 Apr 2013.
  49. 49.
    Davit BM, Nwakama PE, Buehler GJ, Conner DP, Haidar SH, et al. Comparing generic and innovator drugs: a review of 12 years of bioequivalence data from the United States Food and Drug Administration. Ann Pharmacother. 2009;43:1583–97.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Schuirmann DJ. A comparison of the two one-sided tests procedure and the power approach for assessing the equivalence of average bioavailability. J Pharmacokinet Biopharm. 1987;15:657–80.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    US Food and Drug Administration Response to Docket No. FDA-2001-P-0120-1, establishing bioequivalence to the verapamil hydrochloride extended-release tablet 2003. http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=FDA-2001-P-0120-0001. Accessed 5 Apr 2013.
  52. 52.
    Blume HH, Midha KK. Bio-International 92, conference on bioavailability, bioequivalence, and pharmacokinetic studies. J Pharm Sci. 1993;82:1186–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Shah VP, Yacobi A, Barr WH, Benet LZ, Breimer D, et al. Evaluation of highly variable drugs and drug formulations. Pharm Res. 1996;13:1590–4.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Patterson SD, Zariffa NMD, Montague TH, Howland K. Non-traditional study designs to demonstrate average bioequivalence for highly variable drug products. Eur J Clin Pharmacol. 2001;57:663–70.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Draft guidance for industry, progesterone capsule. US Department of Health and Human Services Food and Drug Administration Center for Drug Evaluation and Research 2011. http://www.fda.gov/downloads/Drugs/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/Guidances/UCM209294.pdf. Accessed 5 Apr 2013.
  56. 56.
    Pope ND. Generic substitution of narrow therapeutic index drugs. US Pharm. 2009;34(Generic Drug Review Suppl):12–9.Google Scholar
  57. 57.
    Guidance document, Comparative bioavailability standards: formulations used for systemic effect. Health Canada Therapeutic Products Directorate Bureau of Policy, Science, and International Programs 2012. http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/dhp-mps/alt_formats/pdf/prodpharma/applic-demande/guide-ld/bio/gd_standards_ld_normes-eng.pdf. Accessed 5 Apr 2013.
  58. 58.
    Attachment 2 of Division-Notification 0229 of the Pharmaceutical and Food Safety Bureau, Guideline for bioequivalence studies for different strengths of solid oral dosage forms. Japanese Ministry of Health, Labour, and Welfare 2012. http://www.nihs.go.jp/drug/be-guide(e)/strength/GL-E_120229_ganryo.pdf. Accessed 5 Apr 2013.
  59. 59.
    Tamboli AM, Todkar P, Zope P, Sayyad FJ. An overview of bioequivalence: regulatory considerations for generic drug products. J Bioequiv Bioavail. 2010;2:86–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Summary minutes of the Advisory Committee for Pharmaceutical Science and Clinical Pharmacology, July 26 2011. http://www.fda.gov/AdvisoryCommittees/CommitteesMeetingMaterials/Drugs/AdvisoryCommitteeforPharmaceuticalScienceandClinicalPharmacology/ucm240583.htm Accessed 5 Apr 2013.
  61. 61.
    Draft Guidance for Industry, warfarin sodium tablets, US Department of Health and Human Services Food and Drug Administration Center for Drug Evaluation and Research 2012. http://www.fda.gov/downloads/Drugs/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/Guidances/UCM201283.pdf Accessed 5 Apr 2013.
  62. 62.
    Draft guidance for industry, tacrolimus capsules. US Department of Health and Human Services Food and Drug Administration Center for Drug Evaluation and Research 2012. http://www.fda.gov/downloads/Drugs/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/Guidances/UCM181006.pdf. Accessed 5 Apr 2013.
  63. 63.
    Levothyroxine sodium tablets. In: The United States Pharmacopeia (USP 35) The National Formulary (NF 30). Rockville: The US Pharmacopeial Convention; 2012, p. 3679–3681.Google Scholar
  64. 64.
    US Food and Drug Administration Response to Docket No. FDA-2008-P-0185, establishing bioequivalence to the minocycline hydrochloride extended-release tablet 2009. http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=FDA-2008-P-0185-0006. Accessed 24 Nov 2012.
  65. 65.
    Guidance for Industry, waiver of in vivo bioavailability and bioequivalence studies for immediate-release solid oral dosage forms based on a biopharmaceutics classification system. US Department of Health and Human Services Food and Drug Administration Center for Drug Evaluation and Research 2000. http://www.fda.gov/downloads/Drugs/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/Guidances/UCM070246.pdf. Accessed 24 Nov 2012.
  66. 66.
    Guidance document, General notes on Biopharmaceutics Classification System (BCS)-based biowaiver applications. World Health Organization Prequalifications of Medicines Programme 2011. http://apps.who.int/prequal/info_applicants/BE/BW_general_2011November.pdf. Accessed 24 Nov 2012.
  67. 67.
    Draft guidance document, Biopharmaceutics classification system based biowaiver. Health Canada Therapeutic Products Directorate Bureau of Policy, Science, and International Programs 2012. http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/dhp-mps/alt_formats/pdf/consultation/drug-medic/bcs_draft_guide_ebauche_ld_scb-eng.pdf. Accessed 5 Apr 2013.
  68. 68.
    Malins A, Milne CP. Application of biopharmaceutics classification system in drug development. Pharma Focus Asia, Ochre Press. Issue 16. 2012. http://www.pharmafocusasia.com/research_development/application-Biopharmaceutics-Classification-System-Drug-Development.htm. Accessed 5 Apr 2013.

Copyright information

© American Association of Pharmaceutical Scientists 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Barbara Davit
    • 1
  • April C. Braddy
    • 2
  • Dale P. Conner
    • 2
  • Lawrence X. Yu
    • 2
  1. 1.Merck PharmaceuticalsRahwayUSA
  2. 2.Office of Generic Drugs, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, US-FDARockvilleUSA

Personalised recommendations