Advertisement

Bioequivalence for Orally Inhaled and Nasal Drug Products

Chapter
Part of the AAPS Advances in the Pharmaceutical Sciences Series book series (AAPS, volume 13)

Abstract

Bioequivalence (BE) of conventional oral dosage forms intended for systemic action is typically established by comparing drug concentration in plasma or urine following administration of test and reference products to healthy human subjects at the same dose and under similar conditions. However, this approach is not directly applicable to demonstrate BE of orally inhaled and nasal drug products intended for local action, primarily due to lack of relevance of drug concentration in blood/urine to the drug available at the local site(s) of action. Therefore, establishing BE for these drug products is based on an aggregate weight-of-evidence approach, which utilizes in vitro studies, pharmacokinetic studies, and pharmacodynamic/clinical endpoint BE studies to establish equivalence in in vitro performance, systemic exposure, and local delivery, respectively. This chapter discusses the important aspects for establishing BE for locally acting orally inhaled and nasal spray drug products.

Keywords

Fluticasone Propionate Nasal Spray Reference Product Dose Inhaler Local Drug Delivery 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Adams W, Ahrens RC, Chen ML, Christopher D, Chowdhury BA, Conner DP, Dalby R, Fitzgerald K, Hendeles L, Hickey AJ, Hochhaus G, Laube BL, Lucas P, Lee SL, Lyapustina S, Li B, O’connor D, Parikh N, Parkins DA, Peri P, Pitcairn GR, Riebe M, Roy P, Shah T, Singh GJ, Sharp SS, Suman JD, Weda M, Woodcock J, Yu L (2010) Demonstrating bioequivalence of locally acting orally inhaled drug products (OIPS): workshop summary report. J Aerosol Med Pulm Drug Deliv 23:1–29PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Ahrens RC, Bonham AC, Maxwell GA, Weinberger MM (1984) A method for comparing the peak intensity and duration of action of aerosolized bronchodilators using bronchoprovocation with methacholine. Am Rev Respir Dis 129(6):903–906Google Scholar
  3. Ahrens RC (2007) Pharmacodynamic testing of test inhaler be: unresolved issues and potential solutions. In: Dalby RN, Byron PR, Peart J, Farr SJ, Suman JD (eds) RDD Europe 2007, vol 1. Davis Healthcare, River Grove, IL, pp 1–10, ISBN: 1-933722-07-XGoogle Scholar
  4. Anderton R, Cuff MT, Frith PA, Cockcroft DW, Morse JLC, Jones NL, Hargreave FE (1979) Bronchial responsiveness to inhaled histamine and exercise. J Allergy Clin Immunol 63:315–320PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. ATS/ERS (2005) ATS/ERS recommendations for standardized procedures for the online and offline measurement of exhaled lower respiratory nitric oxide and nasal nitric oxide, 2005. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 171:912–930CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Borgström L, Derom E, Ståhl E, Wåhlin-Boll E, Pauwels R (1996) The inhalation device influences lung deposition and bronchodilating effect of terbutaline. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 153:1636–1640PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bosquillon C, Lombry C, Préat V, Vanbever R (2001) Influence of formulation excipients and physical characteristics of inhalation dry powders on their aerosolization performance. J Control Release 23:329–339CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Chowdhury B (2001) FDA Advisory Committee for Pharmaceutical Science: difficulties in showing a dose–response with locally-acting nasal sprays and aerosols for allergic rhinitis. http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/ac/01/slides/3763s1.htm. Assessed 2013
  9. Currie G, Bates CE, Lee DK, Jackson CM, Lipworth BJ (2003) Effects of fluticasone plus salmeterol versus twice the dose of fluticasone in asthmatic patients. Eur J Clin Pharmacol 59:11–15PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Daley-Yates PT, Mehta R, Chan RH, Despa SX, Louey MD (2013) Pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of fluticasone propionate and salmeterol delivered as a combination dry powder from a capsule-based inhaler and a multidose inhaler in asthma and COPD patients. J Aerosol Med Plum Drug Deliv [Epub Ahead of Print]Google Scholar
  11. Fardon T, Lee DKC, Haggart K, Mcfarlane LC, Lipworth BJ (2004) Adrenal suppression with dry powder formulations of fluticasone propionate and mometasone furoate. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 170:760–766CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. FDA (2001) Guidance for industry: statistical approaches to establishing bioequivalence. http://www.fda.gov/downloads/drugs/guidancecomplianceregulatoryinformation/guidances/ucm070244.pdf. Assessed 2013
  13. FDA (2003a) Draft guidance for industry: bioavailability and bioequivalence studies for nasal aerosols and nasal sprays for local action. http://www.fda.gov/downloads/drugs/guidancecomplianceregulatoryinformation/guidances/ucm070111.pdf. Assessed 2013
  14. FDA (2003b) Guidance for industry: bioavailability and bioequivalence studies for orally administered drug products-general considerations. http://www.fda.gov/downloads/drugs/guidancecomplianceregulatoryinformation/guidances/ucm070124.pdf. Assessed 2013
  15. FDA (2010) Draft guidance for industry: bioequivalence recommendations for specific products: Orlistat capsule. http://www.fda.gov/drugs/guidancecomplianceregulatoryinformation/guidances/ucm075207.htm. Assessed 2013
  16. FDA (2012) Draft guidance for industry: bioequivalence recommendations for specific products: budesonide suspension for inhalation. http://www.fda.gov/drugs/guidancecomplianceregulatoryinformation/guidances/ucm075207.htm. Assessed 2013
  17. FDA (2013a) Draft guidance for industry: bioequivalence recommendations for specific products: albuterol sulfate aerosol, metered/inhalation. http://www.fda.gov/drugs/guidancecomplianceregulatoryinformation/guidances/ucm075207.htm. Assessed 2013
  18. FDA (2013b) Draft guidance for industry: bioequivalence recommendations for specific products: fluticasone propionate and salmeterol xinafaote powder for inhalation. http://www.fda.gov/drugs/guidancecomplianceregulatoryinformation/guidances/ucm075207.htm. Assessed 2013
  19. Finney D (1978) Statistical methods in biological assay. Charles Griffin & Co., LondonGoogle Scholar
  20. Haidar S, Makhlouf F, Schuirmann DJ, Hyslop T, Davit B, Conner D, Yu LX (2008) Evaluation of a scaling approach for the bioequivalence of highly variable drugs. AAPS J 10:450–454PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. HandiHaler. http://www.inteda.net/handihaler.htm. Accessed 2013
  22. Harris A, Svensson E, Wagner ZG, Lethagen S, Nilsson IM (1988) Effect of viscosity on particle size, deposition, and clearance of nasal drug delivery systems containing desmopressin. J Pharm Sci 77:405–408PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Juniper EF, Frith PA, Dunnett C, Cockcroft DW, Hargreave FE (1978) Reproducibility and comparison of responses to inhaled histamine and methacholine. Thorax 33:705–710PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Juniper E, Frith PA, Hargreave FE (1981) Airway responsiveness to histamine and methacholine: relationship of minimum treatment to control symptoms of asthma. Thorax 36:575–579PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Kalaly K, Alhaleweh A, Velaga SP, Nokhodchi A (2011) Effect of carrier particle shape on dry powder inhaler performance. Int J Pharm 421:12–23CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Kemp J, Bierman CW, Cocchetto DM (1993) Dose–response study of inhaled salmeterol in asthmatic patients with 24-hour spirometry and holter monitoring. Ann Allergy 70:316–322PubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Kharitonov S, Yates D, Robbins RA, Logan-Sinclair R, Shinebourne EA, Barnes PJ (1994) Increased nitric oxide in exhaled air of asthmatic patients. Lancet 343:133–135PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Kublik H, Vidgren MT (1998) Nasal delivery systems and their effects on deposition and absorption. Adv Drug Deliv Rev 29:157–177PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Kwok P, Glover W, Chan HK (2005) Electrostatic charge characteristics of aerosols produced from metered dose inhalers. J Pharm Sci 94:2789–2799PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Lee S (2012) US regulatory considerations for test dry powder inhalers. In: Dalby RN, Byron PR, Peart J, Farr SJ, Suman JD (eds) Respiratory drug delivery 2012, vol 1. Davis Healthcare, River Grove, IL, pp 317–324, ISBN: 1-933722-57-6Google Scholar
  31. Lee S, Adams WP, Li BV, Conner DP, Chowdhury BA, Yu LX (2009) In vitro considerations to support bioequivalence of locally acting drugs in dry powder inhalers for lung diseases. AAPS J 11:414–423PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Lewis D, Johnson S, Meakin B (1998) Effects of orifice diameter on beclomethasonedipropionate delivery from a PMDI HFA solution formulation. In: Dalby RN, Byron PR, Peart J, Suman JD (eds) Respiratory drug delivery conference. Respiratory drug delivery program and proceedings, pp 363–364Google Scholar
  33. Li B, Jin F, Lee SL, Bai T, Chowdhury B, Caramenico HT, Conner DP (2013) Bioequivalence for locally acting nasal spray and nasal aerosol products: standard development and test approval. AAPS J 15:875–883PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Löfdahl C, Andersson L, Bondesson E, Carlsson LG, Friberg K, Hedner J, Hörnblad Y, Jemsby P, Källén A, Ullman A, Werner S, Svedmyr N (1997) Differences in bronchodilating potency of salbutamol in turbuhaler as compared with a pressurized metered-dose inhaler formulation in patients with reversible airway obstruction. Eur Respir J 10:2474–2478PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Murthy T, Basal Vishnu Priya M, Satyanarayana V (2010) Performance of CFC free propellent-driven MDI of fluticasone propionate. J Sci Ind Res 69:866–871Google Scholar
  36. Newman S, Busse WW (2002) Evolution of dry powder inhaler design, formulation, and performance. Respir Med 96:293–304PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. NHLBI (2007) Guidelines for the diagnosis and management of asthma (EPR-3). http://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/guidelines/asthma/. Assessed 2013
  38. Palmquist M, Ibsen T, Mellén A, Lötvall J (1999) Comparison of the relative efficacy of formoterol and salmeterol in asthmatic patients. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 160:244–249CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Pilcer G, Amighi K (2010) Formulation strategy and use of excipients in pulmonary drug delivery. Int J Pharm 392:1–19PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Ratner P, Wingertzahn MA, Herzog R, Huang H, Desai SY, Maier G, Nave R (2011) An investigation of the pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, safety, and tolerability of ciclesonide hydrofluoroalkane nasal aerosol in healthy subjects and subjects with perennial allergic rhinitis. Pulm Pharmacol Ther 24:426–433PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Shur J, Lee S, Adams W, Lionberger R, Tibbatts J, Price R (2012) Effect of device design on the in vitro performance and comparability for capsule-based dry powder inhalers. AAPS J 14:667–676PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Silkoff P, Mcclean P, Spino M, Erlich L, Slutsky AS, Zamel N (2001) Dose–response relationship and reproducibility of the fall in exhaled nitric oxide after inhaled beclomethasonedipropionate therapy in asthma patients. Chest 119:1322–1328PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Singh G, Adams WP (2005) US regulatory and scientific considerations for approval of generic locally acting orally inhaled, and nasal drug products. In: Dalby RN, Byron PR, Peart J, Farr SJ, Suman JD (eds) RDD Europe 2005, vol 1. Davis Healthcare, River Grove, IL, pp 115–126, ISBN: 1-930114-80-XGoogle Scholar
  44. Smyth H (2003) The influence of formulation variables on the performance of alternative propellant-driven metered dose inhalers. Adv Drug Deliv Rev 55:807–828PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Stein S, Myrdal PB (2004) A theoretical and experimental analysis of formulations and device parameters affecting solution MDI size distributions. J Pharm Sci 93:2158–2175PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The United States Government 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Center for Drug Evaluation and ResearchU.S. Food and Drug AdministrationSilver SpringUSA

Personalised recommendations