Advertisement

The AAPS Journal

, 21:29 | Cite as

Dissolution and Translational Modeling Strategies Toward Establishing an In Vitro-In Vivo Link—a Workshop Summary Report

  • Tycho Heimbach
  • Sandra Suarez-Sharp
  • Maziar Kakhi
  • Nico Holmstock
  • Andrés Olivares-Morales
  • Xavier Pepin
  • Erik Sjögren
  • Eleftheria Tsakalozou
  • Paul Seo
  • Min Li
  • Xinyuan Zhang
  • Ho-Pi Lin
  • Timothy Montague
  • Amitava Mitra
  • Denise Morris
  • Nikunjkumar Patel
  • Filippos KesisoglouEmail author
Meeting Report Theme: Dissolution and Translational Modeling Strategies Enabling Patient-Centric Product Development
  • 15 Downloads
Part of the following topical collections:
  1. Theme: Dissolution and Translational Modeling Strategies Enabling Patient-Centric Product Development

ABSTRACT

This publication summarizes the proceedings of day 2 of a 3-day workshop on “Dissolution and Translational Modeling Strategies Enabling Patient-Centric Product Development.” Patient-centric drug product development from a drug product quality perspective necessitates the establishment of clinically relevant drug product specifications via an in vitro-in vivo link. Modeling and simulation offer a path to establish this link; in this regard, physiologically based modeling has been implemented successfully to support regulatory decision-making and drug product labeling. In this manuscript, case studies of physiologically based biopharmaceutics modeling (PBBM) applied to drug product quality are presented and summarized. These case studies exemplify a possible path to achieve an in vitro-in vivo link and encompass (a) development of biopredictive dissolution methods to support biowaivers, (b) model-informed formulation selection, (c) predicting clinical formulation performance, and (d) defining a safe space for regulatory flexibility via virtual bioequivalence (BE). Workflows for the development and verification of absorption models/PBBM and for the establishment of a safe space using dissolution as an input are described with examples. Breakout session discussions on topics, such as current challenges and some best practices in model development and verification, are included as part of the Supplementary material.

KEY WORDS

clinically relevant dissolution specifications IVIVC/IVIVR physiologically based biopharmaceutics modeling (PBBM) safe space virtual bioequivalence 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The meeting organizers are indefinitely grateful to Drs. James Polli (University of Maryland, School of Pharmacy, Baltimore, MD), Tzuchi (Rob) Ju (AbbVie, Inc.), and Ms. Ann Anonson (UM) for their tremendous efforts in helping with the organization of this workshop. The authors wish to thank the following colleagues who have made significant contributions to for providing the material from their case studies that were highlighted in this presentation. Sanofi: Sylvie Fabre-Decourt, Anne Lanotte, Victor Ariel; in Ardea Biosciences: Colin Rowlings, Anna Eidelman, Don Treacy; in AstraZeneca: Talia Flanagan, David Holt, Simon Hartas; Novartis: Marc Laisney, Handan He; Roche: Neil John Parrott and Cordula Stillhart and their co-workers; Janssen: Christophe Tistaert.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that there are no conflicts of interest.

Disclaimer

This manuscript reflects the views of the authors and should not be construed to represent their organizations’ views or policies.

Supplementary material

12248_2019_298_MOESM1_ESM.doc (158 kb)
ESM 1 (DOC 157 kb)

References

  1. 1.
    University of Maryland, School of Pharmacy, Dissolution and translational modeling strategies enabling patient-centric product development agenda, http://pharmacy.umaryland.edu/centers/cersievents/dissolution-and-translational-modeling-strategies/agenda/. Accessed 30 Nov 2018.
  2. 2.
    Abend A, Heimbach T, Cohen M, Kesisoglou F, Pepin X, Suarez-Sharp S. Dissolution and translational modeling strategies enabling patient-centric drug product development: the M-CERSI Workshop summary report. AAPS J. 2018;20(3):60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Abend A, Curran D, Kuiper J, Lu X, Li H, Hermans A, Kotwal P, Diaz DA, Cohen MJ, Zhang L, Stippler E, Drazer G, Lin Y, Raines K, Yu L, Coutant CA, Grady H, Krämer J, Pope-Miksinski S, Suarez-Sharp S. Dissolution testing in drug product development: workshop summary report. AAPS J. 2019;21(2):21.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Suarez-Sharp S, Cohen M, Kesisoglou F, Abend A, Marroum P, Delvadia P, et al. Applications of clinically relevant dissolution testing: workshop summary report. AAPS J. 2018;20(6):93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    European Medicines Agency (EMA), Guideline on the qualification and reporting of physiologically based pharmacokinetic (PBPK) modelling and simulation, 13-Dec-2018 [Available from: https://www.ema.europa.eu/documents/scientific-guideline/guideline-reporting-physiologically-based-pharmacokinetic-pbpk-modelling-simulation_en.pdf. Accessed 30 Nov 2018.
  6. 6.
    FDA. Physiologically based pharmacokinetic analyses—format and content, guidance for industry. August 2018. Available from: https://www.fda.gov/ucm/groups/fdagov-public/@fdagov-drugs-gen/documents/document/ucm531207.pdf. Accessed 30 Nov 2018.
  7. 7.
    Kostewicz ES, Aarons L, Bergstrand M, Bolger MB, Galetin A, Hatley O, et al. PBPK models for the prediction of in vivo performance of oral dosage forms. Eur J Pharm Sci. 2014;57:300–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Zhang X, Lionberger RA, Davit BM, Yu LX. Utility of physiologically based absorption modeling in implementing quality by design in drug development. AAPS J. 2011;13(1):59–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Seo P., Challenges and strategies in establishing an in-vitro in-vivo link, in Dissolution and translational modeling strategies enabling patientcentric product development. 2017: Baltimore, MD. Available at https://pharmacy.umaryland.edu/media/SOP/wwwpharmacyumarylandedu/centers/cersievents/dissolution/day2_paul-seo.pdf. Accessed 30 Nov 2018.
  10. 10.
    Suarez-Sharp S, Li M, Duan J, Shah H, Seo P. Regulatory experience with in vivo in vitro correlations (IVIVC) in new drug applications. AAPS J. 2016;18(6):1379–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    FDA. Prescription drug user fee amendments. 2018. Available from: https://www.fda.gov/forindustry/userfees/prescriptiondruguserfee/. Accessed 30 Nov 2018.
  12. 12.
    Kakhi M., Application of stochastic deconvolution in IVIVC development, in Dissolution and translational modeling strategies enabling patientcentric product development. 2017. Baltimore, MD. Available at https://pharmacy.umaryland.edu/media/SOP/wwwpharmacyumarylandedu/centers/cersievents/dissolution/day2_maziar-kakhi.PDF. Accessed 30 Nov 2018.
  13. 13.
    Kakhi M, Chittenden J. Modeling of pharmacokinetic systems using stochastic deconvolution. J Pharm Sci. 2013;102(12):4433–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Montague TH. Novel approaches in human PK study design (e.g. stable isotopes technique) to overcome the challenges in the conduct of dedicated BA/BE studies (case studies), in Dissolution and translational modeling strategies enabling patient-centric product development. 2017. Baltimore, MD. Available at https://pharmacy.umaryland.edu/media/SOP/wwwpharmacyumarylandedu/centers/cersievents/dissolution/day2_tim-montague.pdf. Accessed 30 Nov 2018.
  15. 15.
    Heck HdA, et al. Bioavailability of imipramine tablets relative to a stable isotope-labeled internal standard: increasing the power of bioavailability tests. J Pharmacokinet Biopharm. 1979;7(3):233–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Parr A, Gupta M, Montague TH, Hoke F. Re-introduction of a novel approach to the use of stable isotopes in pharmacokinetic studies. AAPS J. 2012;14(3):639–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Holmstock N. Development of canagliflozin: mechanistic absorption modeling during late-stage formulation and process optimization, in Dissolution and translational modeling strategies enabling patient-centric product development. 2017. Baltimore, MD. Available at https://pharmacy.umaryland.edu/media/SOP/wwwpharmacyumarylandedu/centers/cersievents/dissolution/day2_nico-holmstock.pdf. Accessed 30 Nov 2018.
  18. 18.
    Heimbach T, He H. PBPK modeling and simulations of oral drug absorption/food effect/PPI /PBIVIVC: opportunities and challenges, in Dissolution and translational modeling strategies enabling patient-centric product development. 2017. Baltimore, MD. Available at https://pharmacy.umaryland.edu/media/SOP/wwwpharmacyumarylandedu/centers/cersievents/dissolution/day2_tycho-heimbach.pdf. Accessed 30 Nov 2018.
  19. 19.
    Amidon GL, Lennernäs H, Shah VP, Crison JR. A theoretical basis for a biopharmaceutic drug classification: the correlation of in vitro drug product dissolution and in vivo bioavailability. Pharm Res. 1995;12(3):413–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Marshall SF, et al. Good practices in model-informed drug discovery and development: practice, application, and documentation. CPT: Pharmacometrics Syst Pharmacol. 2015;5(3):93–122.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Nordmark, A., PBPK workshop introduction of the PBPK guideline and expectations of the day, In EMA workshop: qualification and reporting of physiologically-based pharmacokinetic (PBPK) modelling and simulation. 2016: EMA, London.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Einolf HJ, Lin W, Won CS, Wang L, Gu H, Chun DY, et al. Physiologically based pharmacokinetic model predictions of panobinostat (LBH589) as a victim and perpetrator of drug-drug interactions. Drug Metab Dispos. 2017;45(12):1304–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Olivares-Morales A, Parrott N, Stillhart C. Case studies of mechanistic absorption modeling and IVIVC, in Dissolution and translational modeling strategies enabling patient-centric product development. 2017. Baltimore, MD. Available at https://pharmacy.umaryland.edu/media/SOP/wwwpharmacyumarylandedu/centers/cersievents/dissolution/day2_a-olivares.pdf. Accessed 30 Nov 2018.
  24. 24.
    Parrott N, Hainzl D, Scheubel E, Krimmer S, Boetsch C, Guerini E, et al. Physiologically based absorption modelling to predict the impact of drug properties on pharmacokinetics of bitopertin. AAPS J. 2014;16(5):1077–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Jones HM, Parrott N, Jorga K, Lavé T. A novel strategy for physiologically based predictions of human pharmacokinetics. Clin Pharmacokinet. 2006;45(5):511–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Stillhart C, Parrott NJ, Lindenberg M, Chalus P, Bentley D, Szepes A. Characterising drug release from immediate-release formulations of a poorly soluble compound, basmisanil, through absorption modelling and dissolution testing. AAPS J. 2017;19(3):827–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Olivares-Morales A, Ghosh A, Aarons L, Rostami-Hodjegan A. Development of a novel simplified PBPK absorption model to explain the higher relative bioavailability of the OROS® formulation of oxybutynin. AAPS J. 2016;18(6):1532–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Lin H-P. The utility of in silico PBPK absorption modeling and simulation as a tool to increase the success of developing bio-predictive dissolution methods: success and limitations (case studies from regulatory perspective), in Dissolution and translational modeling strategies enabling patient-centric product development. 2017. Baltimore, MD. Available at https://pharmacy.umaryland.edu/media/SOP/wwwpharmacyumarylandedu/centers/cersievents/dissolution/day2_hopi-lin.pdf. Accessed 30 Nov 2018.
  29. 29.
    Zhao L, Tsakalozou E. The utility of in silico PBPK absorption modeling and simulation as a tool to develop bio-predictive dissolution methods, in Dissolution and translational modeling strategies enabling patient-centric product development. 2017. Baltimore, MD. Available at https://pharmacy.umaryland.edu/media/SOP/wwwpharmacyumarylandedu/centers/cersievents/dissolution/day2_liang-zhao.pdf. Accessed 30 Nov 2018.
  30. 30.
    Pepin, X. in silico PBPK modelling in support of drug product dissolution and drug substance particle size specifications, in Dissolution and translational modeling strategies enabling patient-centric product development. 2017. Baltimore, MD. Available at https://pharmacy.umaryland.edu/media/SOP/wwwpharmacyumarylandedu/centers/cersievents/dissolution/day2_xavier-pepin.pdf. Accessed 30 Nov 2018.
  31. 31.
    Pepin XJ, et al. Justification of drug product dissolution rate and drug substance particle size specifications based on absorption PBPK modeling for lesinurad immediate release tablets. Mol Pharm. 2016;13(9):3256–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Mitra A. Maximizing the role of physiologically based oral absorption modeling in generic drug development. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2019;105(2):307–9.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Rowland M, Peck C, Tucker G. Physiologically-based pharmacokinetics in drug development and regulatory science. Annu Rev Pharmacol Toxicol. 2011;51:45–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© American Association of Pharmaceutical Scientists 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Tycho Heimbach
    • 1
  • Sandra Suarez-Sharp
    • 2
  • Maziar Kakhi
    • 2
  • Nico Holmstock
    • 3
  • Andrés Olivares-Morales
    • 4
  • Xavier Pepin
    • 5
  • Erik Sjögren
    • 6
    • 7
  • Eleftheria Tsakalozou
    • 2
  • Paul Seo
    • 2
  • Min Li
    • 2
  • Xinyuan Zhang
    • 2
  • Ho-Pi Lin
    • 2
  • Timothy Montague
    • 8
  • Amitava Mitra
    • 9
  • Denise Morris
    • 10
  • Nikunjkumar Patel
    • 11
  • Filippos Kesisoglou
    • 12
    Email author
  1. 1.Department of PK Sciences, PBPK and Biopharmaceutics SectionNovartis Institutes for BioMedical ResearchEast HanoverUSA
  2. 2.Center for Drug Evaluation and ResearchFood and Drug AdministrationSilver SpringUSA
  3. 3.Pharmaceutical Sciences, Small Molecule Pharmaceutical DevelopmentJanssen Research and DevelopmentBeerseBelgium
  4. 4.Roche Pharmaceutical Research and Early Development, Pharmaceutical SciencesRoche Innovation Center BaselBaselSwitzerland
  5. 5.AstraZeneca, Global Medicines Development, Pharmaceutical DevelopmentHurdsfield Industrial EstateMacclesfieldUK
  6. 6.Department of PharmacyUppsala UniversityUppsalaSweden
  7. 7.PharmetheusUppsalaSweden
  8. 8.GSKCollegevilleUSA
  9. 9.Clinical Development, Sandoz, Inc. (A Novartis Division)PrincetonUSA
  10. 10.Cognigen Corporation, a Simulations Plus CompanyBuffaloUSA
  11. 11.Simcyp Limited (a Certara Company)SheffieldUK
  12. 12.Pharmaceutical Sciences, Merck & Co., Inc.West PointUSA

Personalised recommendations