Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Survey of International Regulatory Bioequivalence Recommendations for Approval of Generic Topical Dermatological Drug Products

  • Review Article
  • Theme: Pharmacokinetics, Biopharmaceutics and Bioequivalence: History and Perspectives
  • Published:
The AAPS Journal Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The objective of this article is to discuss the similarities and differences in accepted bioequivalence (BE) approaches for generic topical dermatological drug products between international regulatory authorities and organizations. These drug products are locally applied and not intended for systemic absorption. Therefore, the BE approaches which serve as surrogates to establish safety and efficacy for topical dosage forms tend to differ from the traditional solid oral dosage forms. We focused on 15 different international jurisdictions and organizations that currently participate in the International Generic Drug Regulators Pilot Project. These are Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, Chinese Taipei, the European Medicines Association (EMA), Japan, Mexico, New Zealand, Singapore (a member of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations), South Africa, South Korea, Switzerland, the USA and the World Health Organization (WHO). Upon evaluation, we observed that currently only Canada, the EMA, Japan, and the USA have specific guidance documents for topical drug products. Across all jurisdictions and organizations, the three approaches consistently required are (1) BE studies with clinical endpoints for most topical drug products; (2) in vivo pharmacodynamic studies, in particular the vasoconstrictor assay for topical corticosteroids; and (3) waivers from BE study requirements for topical solutions. Japan, South Africa, the USA, and the WHO are also making strides to accept other BE approaches such as in vivo pharmacokinetic studies for BE assessment, in vivo dermatopharmacokinetic studies and/or BE studies with in vitro endpoints.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Shah VP. Progress in methodologies for evaluating bioequivalence of topical formulations. Am J Clin Dermatol. 2001;2(5):275–80.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Kanfer I. Strategies for the bioequivalence assessment of topical dermatological dosage forms. J Bioequivalence Availab. 2010;2:102–10. doi:10.4172/ jbb.1000040.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Kircik LH, Bikowski JB, Cohen DE, Draelos ZD, Hebert A. Formulation development, testing and approval, part 1 of 2. Supplement to practical dermatology. Vehicles matter. 2010. http://bmctoday.net/vehiclesmatter/pdfs/0310.pdf. Accessed 18 Apr 2014.

  4. General Chapter <1151> Pharmaceutical dosage forms. US Pharmacoepia. 2013. http://www.uspnf.com/uspnf/pub/index?usp=36&nf=31&s=2&officialOn=December 1, 2013. Accessed 18 April 2014.

  5. Shah VP, Flynn GL, Yacobi A, Maibach HI, Bon C, et al. Bioequivalence of topical dermatological dosage forms—methods of evaluation of bioequivalence. Pharm Res. 1998;15(2):167–71. doi:10.1023/A:1011941929495.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Weiss SC. Conventional topical delivery systems. Dermatol Ther. 2011;24(5):471–6. doi:10.1111/j.1529-8019.2012.01458.x.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Long CC. Common skin disorders and their topical treatment. In: Walters KA, editor. Dermatological and transdermal formulations. New York: Informa Healthcare; 2007. p. 41–60.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Zovoko E. An investigator’s perspective on practical issues and challenges in conducting clinical endpoint studies. Presented at: Product Quality Research Institute (PQRI) workshop on evaluation of new and generic topical drug products—current challenges in bioequivalence, quality and novel assessment technologies. 2013 March 11–13; Rockville, MD USA. http://www.pqri.org/workshops/Topicals2013/Zovko.pdf. Accessed 18 Apr 2014.

  9. Hixon D. Clinical endpoint bioequivalence studies for locally acting drugs. Advisory committee for pharmaceutical science. US Department of Health and Human Services, Food and Drug Administration, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research. 2003 March 12. http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/ac/03/slides/3926S1_18_Hixon.ppt. Accessed 18 April 2014.

  10. Mastan S, Latha TB, Ajay S. The basic regulatory considerations and prospects for conducting bioavailability/bioequivalence (BA/BE) studies—an overview. Comp Eff Res. 2011;1:1–25. doi:10.2147/CER.S15861.

    Google Scholar 

  11. McKenzie AW, Stoughton RB. Method for comparing percutaneous absorption of steroids. Arch Dermatol. 1962;86(5):608–10. doi:10.1001/archderm.1962.0159011004 4005.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Stoughton RB. Vasoconstrictor assay—specific applications. In: Surber C, Maibach HI, editors. Topical corticosteroids. Switzerland: Krager; 1992. p. 42–53.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Guidance for Industry, Topic dermatologic corticosteroids: in vivo bioequivalence. US Department of Health and Human Services, Food and Drug Administration, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research. 1995. http://www.fda.gov/downloads/Drugs/GuidanceComnplianceRegulatoryInformation/Guidance/ucm070234.pdf. Accessed 18 April 2014.

  14. Singh GJP, Adams WP, Lesko LJ, Shah VP, Molzon JA, Williams RL, et al. Development of in vivo bioequivalence methodology for dermatologic corticosteroids based on pharmacodynamic modeling. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 1999;66(4):346–57. doi:10.1053/cp.1999.v66.a101209.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Bon C, Katz L. Present experience and challenges with the use of pharmacodynamics evaluation of BE of glucocorticoids—industry perspective. Presented at: PQRI workshop on evaluation of new and generic topical drug products—current challenges in bioequivalence, quality and novel assessment technologies. 2013 March 11–13; Rockville, MD USA. www.pqri.org/workshops/Topicals2013/Katz.pdf. Accessed 18 April 2014.

  16. Ren K, Braddy AC, Wong R, Caramenico HN, Conner DP. FDA perspective on current challenges with the use of pharmacodynamics endpoint evaluation of bioequivalence of topical dermatologic corticosteroids (poster). Presented at: 2013 American Association of Pharmaceutical Scientists Annual Meeting and Exposition. 2013 November 10–14; San Antonio, TX USA. http://abstracts.aaps.org/Verify/aaps2013/postersubmissions/T2374.pdf. Accessed 18 April 2014.

  17. Pershing LK, Nelson JL, Corlett JL, Shrivastava S, Hare DB, Shah VP. Assessment of dermatopharmacokinetic approach in the bioequivalence determination of topical tretinoin gel products. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2003;48(5):740–51. doi:10.1067/mjd.2003.175.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. N’Dri-Stempfer B, Navidi WC, Guy RH, Bunge AL. Improved bioequivalence assessment of topical dermatologic drug products using dermatopharmacokinetics. Pharm Res. 2009;26(2):316–28. doi:10.1007/s11095-008-9742-9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Boix-Montanes A. Relevance of equivalence assessment of topical products based on the dermatopharmacokinetics approach. Eur J Pharm Sci. 2011;42(3):173–9. doi:10.1016/j.ejps.2010.11.003.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Guidance for Industry, Nonsterile semisolid dosage forms, scale-up and post-approval changes: chemistry, manufacturing, and control; in vitro release testing and in vivo bioequivalence documentation. US Department of Health and Human Services, Food and Drug Administration, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research. 1997. http://www.fda.gov/downloads/Drugs/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/Guidances/UCM070930.pdf. Accessed 18 April 2014.

  21. Chaurasia CD, Muller M, Bashaw ED, Benfeldt E, Bolinder J, et al. AAPS-FDA workshop white paper: microdialysis principles, application and regulatory perspectives. Pharm Res. 2007;24(5):1014–25. doi:10.1007/s11095-006-9206-z.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Holmgaard R, Nielsen JB, Benfeldt E. Microdialysis sampling for investigations of bioavailability and bioequivalence of topically administered drugs current state and future perspectives. Skin Pharmacol Physiol. 2010;23(5):225–43. doi:10.1159/000314698.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Narkar Y. Bioequivalence for topical products—an update. Pharm Res. 2010;27(12):2590–601. doi:10.1007/s11095-010-0250-3.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Lademann J, Meinke MC, Schanzer S, Richter H, Darvin ME, et al. In vivo methods for the analysis of the penetration of topically applied substances in and through the skin barrier. Int J Cosmet Sci. 2012;24(4):224–30. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2494.2012.00750.x.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Midha KK, Shah VP, Singh GJP, Patnaik R. Commentary, conference report: bio-international 2005. J Pharm Sci. 2007;96(4):747–54. doi:10.1002/jps.20786.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. International Pharmaceutical Federation. FIP in the media/BPS activities. 2014. http://www.fip.org/. Accessed 18 April 2014.

  27. PQRI workshop on evaluation of new and generic topical drug products—current challenges in bioequivalence, quality and novel assessment technologies. 2013 March 11–13; Rockville, MD USA. http://www.usp.org/meetings-courses/workshops/evaluation-new-and-generic-topical-drug-products-current-challenges-bioequivalence-quality-and-novel. Accessed 18 April 2014.

  28. Davit BM. Regulatory approaches for generic drugs: BE of topical drug products. Presented at: PQRI workshop on the evaluation of new and generic topical drug products—current challenges in bioequivalence, quality and novel assessment technologies. 2013 March 11–13; Rockville, MD USA. http://www.pqri.org/workshops/Topicals2013/Davit.pdf. Accessed 18 April 2014.

  29. Lionberger R. Challenges of assessing bioequivalence of topical pharmaceutical products. Presented at: PQRI workshop on the evaluation of new and generic topical drug products—current challenges in bioequivalence, quality and novel assessment technologies. 2013 March 11–13; Rockville, MD USA. http://www.pqri.org/workshops/Topicals2013/Lionberger.Challenges.pdf. Accessed 18 April 2014.

  30. International Generic Drug Regulators Pilot Project. WHO drug information. Volume 28, no. 1. 2014. http://www.who.int/medicines/publications/druginformation/DI_28-1_Regulatory-Harmonization.pdf. Accessed 18 April 2014.

  31. Davit B, Braddy AC, Conner DP, Yu LX. International guidelines for bioequivalence of systemically available orally administered generic drug products: a survey of similarities and differences. AAPSJ. 2013;15(4):974–88. doi:10.1208/s12248-013-9499-x.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Guideline, New Zealand regulatory guidelines for medicines. The Ministry of Health, New Zealand Medicines and Medical Devices Safety Authority, Medsafe. 2011. http://www.medsafe.govt.nz/regulatory/guidelines.asp. Accessed 18 April 2014.

  33. Guideline, biostudies. Department of Health Republic of South Africa, Medicines Control Council. 2011. http://mccza.com/. Accessed 18 April 2014.

  34. Guidelines, clinical. Australian Government, Department of Health and Aging, Therapeutic Goods Administration. 2011. http://www.tga.gov.au/industry/pm-euguidelines-adopted-clinical.htm#vol3cc12a. Accessed 18 April 2014.

  35. Guideline, on the investigation of bioequivalence. European Medicines Agency. Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use. 2010. http://www.ema.europa.eu/docs/en_GB/document_library/Scientific_guideline/2010/01/WC500070039.pdf. Accessed 18 April 2014.

  36. BABEC Ing. Helmit Schűtz, guideline and guidance documents. Vienna. 2014. http://bebac.at/Guidelines.htm#CN. Accessed 18 April 2014.

  37. Guidelines, bioequivalence recommendation for specific products. US Department of Health and Human Services, Food and Drug Administration, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research. 2014. http://www.fda.gov/Drugs/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/Guidances/ucm075207.htm. Accessed 18 April 2014.

  38. Hung CT, Ren D, Folland LA, Lam FC, Hung NA. Australia. In: Kanfer I, Shargel L, editors. Generic drug development-international regulatory requirements for bioequivalence. New York: Informa Healthcare; 2010. p. 17–45.

    Google Scholar 

  39. Guideline, guide for relative bioavailability/bioequivalence tests of drug products. National Agency of Sanitary Monitoring. 2003. http://www.anvisa.gov.br/hotsite/genericos/legis/resolucoes/896_03re_e.htm. Accessed 18 April 2014.

  40. Marques MR, Storpiritis S, Bueno MM. Brazil. In: Kanfer I, Shargel L, editors. Generic drug development-international regulatory requirements for bioequivalence. New York: Informa Healthcare; 2010. p. 46–66.

    Google Scholar 

  41. Policy, submissions for generic topical drugs. Health Canada, health products and food branch, therapeutic products directorate. 1990. http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/dhp-mps/prodpharma/applic-demande/pol/gener_pol-eng.php. Accessed 18 April 2014.

  42. Notice, guidance for industry: pharmaceutical quality of aqueous solutions. Health Canada, health products and food branch, therapeutic products directorate. 2005. http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/dhp-mps/prodpharma/applic-demande/guide-ld/chem/aqueous_aqueuses-eng.php. Accessed 18 April 2014.

  43. Guideline, conduct and analysis of comparative bioavailability studies. Health Canada, health products and food branch, therapeutic products directorate. 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 18 April 2014.

  44. McGilveray IJ. Canada. In: Kanfer I, Shargel L, editors. Generic drug development-international regulatory requirements for bioequivalence. New York: Informa Healthcare; 2010. p. 67–94.

    Google Scholar 

  45. Guideline, bioavailability and bioequivalence studies for chemical drug products. People’s Republic of China, China Food and Drug Administration. 2005. http://eng.sfda.gov.cn/WS03/CL0755/. Accessed 18 April 2014.

  46. Guideline, for bioavailability/bioequivalence studies. Ministry of Health and Welfare, Department of Health, Taiwan Food and Drug Administration. 2009. http://www.cde.org.tw/English/Regulations/SubLink/Document%2004.pdf. Accessed 18 April 2014.

  47. Pao LH, Chi JF, Hu OYU. Taiwan. In: Kanfer I, Shargel L, editors. Generic drug development-international regulatory requirements for bioequivalence. New York: Informa Healthcare; 2010. p. 232–41.

    Google Scholar 

  48. Guideline, clinical investigation of corticosteroids intended for use on the skin. European Medicines Agency. 1987. http://www.ema.europa.eu/ema/index.jsp?curl=pages/regulation/general/general_content_000398.jsp&mid=WC0b01ac0580034cf0. Accessed 18 April 2014.

  49. Guideline, clinical requirements for locally applied, locally acting products, containing known constituents. European Medicines Agency. 1996. Accessed via Australian Government, Department of Health and Ageing, Therapeutic Goods Administration. http://www.tga.gov.au/industry/pm-euguidelines-adopted-clinical.htm#.U1HvwxBl1-g. Accessed 18 April 2014.

  50. Questions and answer on guideline title: clinical investigation of corticosteroids intended for use on the skin. European Medicines Agency, Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use. 2006. http://www.ema.europa.eu/ema/index.jsp?curl=pages/regulation/general/general_content_000398.jsp&mid=WC0b01ac0580034cf0. Accessed 18 April 2014.

  51. Guideline, for bioequivalence studies of generic products for topical use. Minister of Health, Labour and Welfare, Pharmaceutical and Food Safety Bureau, National Institute of Health Sciences. 2003. http://www.nihs.go.jp/drug/be-guide%28e%29/Topical_BE-E.pdf. Accessed 18 April 2014.

  52. Guideline, for bioequivalence studies of generic products. Minister of Health, Labour and Welfare, Pharmaceutical and Food Safety Bureau, National Institute of Health Sciences. 2012. http://www.nihs.go.jp/drug/be-guide(e)/Generic/GL-E_120229_BE.pdf. Accessed 18 April 2014.

  53. Guideline, Association of South East Asian Nations (ASEAN) for the conduct of bioavailability and bioequivalence studies. ASEAN, Health Sciences Authority. 2004. http://www.hsa.gov.sg/publish/hsaportal/en/home.html#page=tab1. Accessed 18 April 2014.

  54. Guideline, on medicinal product registration in Singapore—product interchangeability and biowaiver request for chemical generic drug applications, Appendix 15. ASEAN, Health Sciences Authority. 2007. http://www.hsa.gov.sg/publish/hsaportal/en/home.html#page=tab1. Accessed 18 April 2014.

  55. Multisource (generic) pharmaceutical products: guidelines on registration requirements to establish interchangeability. Annex 7, WHO Technical Report Series, 937. World Health Organization. 2006. http://whqlibdoc.who.int/trs/who_trs_937_eng.pdf. Accessed 18 April 2014.

  56. Dermal absorption, environmental health criteria 235. World Health Organization. 2006. http://www.inchem.org/documents/ehc/ehc/ehc235.pdf. Accessed 18 April 2014.

  57. United States of America, Federal Regulations-US Code of Federal Regulations. Title 21 part 314 applications for FDA approval to market a new drug, subpart C—abbreviated applications. Revised as 01 April 2013. http://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfCFR/CFRSearch.cfm. Accessed 18 April 2014.

  58. United States of America, Federal Regulations-US Code of Federal Regulations. Title 21 part 320 bioavailability and bioequivalence. Revised as 01 April 2013. http://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfCFR/CFRSearch.cfm. Accessed 18 April 2014.

  59. Guideline, bioequivalence recommendations for acyclovir ointment. US Department of Health and Human Services, Food and Drug Administration, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research. 2012. http://www.fda.gov/downloads/Drgs/GuidanceComplianceRegulatory Information/Guidances/UCM296733.pdf. Accessed 18 April 2014.

  60. US Food and Drug Administration. Requests the commissioner of food & drugs not approve any generic equivalent version of the petitioner’s proprietary drug product derma-smoothe/FS (Fluocinolone acetonide 0.01% topical oil) unless & until applicants comply with statutory requirements [Docket No. FDA-2004-P-0215] 2009. Regulations.gov, http://www.regulations.gov/#!home. Accessed 18 April 2014.

  61. Braddy AC, Conner DP. Regulatory perspective of dermatokinetic studies. In: Murthy SN, editor. Dermatokinetics of therapeutic agents. Florida: CRC Press Taylor & Francis Group; 2011. p. 193–201.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  62. United States of America, Federal Register—draft guidance for industry on topical dermatological drug product NDAs and ANDAs—in vivo bioavailability, bioequivalence, in vitro release and associated studies; withdrawal [Docket No. 98D-0388]. US Department of Health and Human Services, Food and Drug Administration 2002. https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2002/05/17/02-12326/draft-guidance-for-industry-on-topical-dermatological-drug-product-ndas-and-andas-in-vivo. Accessed 18 April 2014.

  63. Generic drug user fee act program performance goals and procedure. US Department of Health and Human Services, Food and Drug Administration. 2012. http://www.fda.gov/downloads/ForIndustry/UserFees/GenericDrugUserFees/UCM282505.pdf. Accessed 18 April 2014.

Download references

Author information

Author notes

  1. Barbara M. Davit

    Present address: Merck, Sharp & Dohme, Whitehouse Station, New Jersey, USA

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Division of Bioequivalence III, Office of Bioequivalence, Office of Generic Drugs, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, U.S. Food and Drug Administration, Silver Spring, Maryland, USA

    April C. Braddy, Barbara M. Davit & Ethan M. Stier

  2. 10903 New Hampshire Avenue, Silver Spring, Maryland, 20993, USA

    April C. Braddy

  3. Office of Bioequivalence, Office of Generic Drugs, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, U.S. Food and Drug Administration, Silver Spring, Maryland, USA

    Dale P. Conner

Authors
  1. April C. Braddy
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Barbara M. Davit
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Ethan M. Stier
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Dale P. Conner
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to April C. Braddy.

Additional information

Guest Editors: Marilyn Martinez and Lawrence Yu

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Braddy, A.C., Davit, B.M., Stier, E.M. et al. Survey of International Regulatory Bioequivalence Recommendations for Approval of Generic Topical Dermatological Drug Products. AAPS J 17, 121–133 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1208/s12248-014-9679-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1208/s12248-014-9679-3

KEY Words

Search

Navigation