A randomized pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic study comparing the bioequivalence of potential biosimilar candidate P044 with reference medicine in healthy volunteers.

BACKGROUND: P044 is a proposed biosimilar candidate of Teriparatide for reference medicine, Forsteo®. This study was designed to evaluate the Pharmacokinetic/Pharmacodynamic (PK/PD) bioequivalence between P044 and Forsteo®. METHODS: In this randomized, open-label, single-dose, crossover study, 66 healthy female subjects were randomized to receive P044 and Forsteo®. The primary PK endpoints of the study were the area under the concentration versus time from zero to infinity (AUC0-inf) and maximum plasma concentration (Cmax). Secondary endpoints included area under the concentration versus time from zero to the last quantifiable concentration (AUC0-last) and Cmax for PD parameter, additional PK parameters and safety. RESULTS: Sixty-six subjects were enrolled in the study and baseline demographics were similar between the two treatments. The two treatments presented similar PK/PD parameters and the 90% confidence interval for primary and secondary endpoints were within the bioequivalence acceptance range (80.00-125.00%) for all parameters. None of the subjects experienced serious adverse event, and all of the reported adverse events were mild and similar between two treatments. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrated the PK/PD similarity of P044 to reference medicine, Forsteo® and safety profiles were comparable between treatments. TRIAL REGISTRATION: EudraCT Number: 2019-004477-82.

Quantitative methods and modeling to assess COVID-19-interrupted in vivo pharmacokinetic bioequivalence studies with two reference batches.

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has presented unprecedented challenges to the generic drug development, including interruptions in bioequivalence (BE) studies. Per guidance published by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) during the COVID-19 public health emergency, any protocol changes or alternative statistical analysis plan for COVID-19-interrupted BE study should be accompanied with adequate justifications and not lead to biased equivalence determination. In this study, we used a modeling and simulation approach to assess the potential impact of study outcomes when two different batches of a Reference Standard (RS) were to be used in an in vivo pharmacokinetic BE study due to the RS expiration during the COVID-19 pandemic. Simulations were performed with hypothetical drugs under two scenarios: (1) uninterrupted study using a single batch of an RS, and (2) interrupted study using two batches of an RS. The acceptability of BE outcomes was evaluated by comparing the results obtained from interrupted studies with those from uninterrupted studies. The simulation results demonstrated that using a conventional statistical approach to evaluate BE for COVID-19-interrupted studies may be acceptable based on the pooled data from two batches. An alternative statistical method which includes a "batch" effect to the mixed effects model may be used when a significant "batch" effect was found in interrupted four-way crossover studies. However, such alternative method is not applicable for interrupted two-way crossover studies. Overall, the simulated scenarios are only for demonstration purpose, the acceptability of BE outcomes for the COVID19-interrupted studies could be case-specific.

Bioequivalence and food effect of a fixed-dose combination of macitentan and tadalafil: Adaptive design in the COVID-19 pandemic.

The COVID-19 pandemic has forced clinical studies to accommodate imposed limitations. In this study, the bioequivalence part could not be conducted as planned. Thus, the aim was to demonstrate bioequivalence, using an adaptive study design, of tadalafil in fixed-dose combination (FDC) tablets of macitentan/tadalafil with single macitentan and tadalafil (Canadian-sourced) tablets and assess the effect of food on FDC tablets in healthy subjects. This Phase 1, single-center, open-label, single-dose, two-part, two-period, randomized, crossover study enrolled 62 subjects. Tadalafil bioequivalence as part of FDC of macitentan/tadalafil (10/40 mg) with single-component tablets of macitentan (10 mg) and tadalafil (40 mg) was determined by pharmacokinetic (PK) assessment under fasted conditions. The effect of food on FDC was evaluated under fed and fasted conditions. Fasted 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for geometric mean ratios (GMRs) were within bioequivalence limits for tadalafil and macitentan. Fed and fasted 90% CIs for area under the curve (AUC) GMR were within bioequivalence limits. However, 90% CIs for maximum plasma concentration (Cmax ) GMR for macitentan and tadalafil were outside bioequivalence limits. One FDC-treated subject experienced a serious adverse event of transient ischemic attack (bioequivalence part). To address pandemic-imposed limitations, an adaptive study design was implemented to demonstrate that the FDC tablet was bioequivalent to the free combination of macitentan and tadalafil (Canadian-sourced). No clinically significant differences in PK were determined between fed and fasted conditions; the FDC formulation could be taken irrespective of meals. The FDC formulation under fasted and fed conditions was well tolerated with no clinically relevant differences in safety profiles between the treatment groups. NCT Number: NCT04235270.

Bioequivalence study of two favipiravir tablet formulations in healthy male subjects.

OBJECTIVE: The global pandemic called COVID-19 has dragged the world into a healthcare crisis, and favipiravir is one of the most prescribed agents against the virus so far. Favipiravir is a repurposed antiviral agent in treatment of SARS-CoV-2 infection, and to meet the current need, pharmaceutical companies are working for manufacturing licensed generic favipiravir. For getting the marketing authorization, the bioequivalence of the generic product must be proven first. The aim of this study is to demonstrate the bioequivalence of a new favipiravir tablet formulation as compared to the reference tablet formulation in healthy male subjects under fasting conditions. MATERIALS AND METHODS: To prove the bioequivalence, a randomized, single oral dose, cross-over, two-period study was carried out in 30 healthy subjects under fasting conditions. Plasma favipiravir levels were quantified by using an in-house-developed high performance liquid chromatography with mass spectrometry detector (LC-MSD) method. RESULTS: The 90% CIs for the test/reference geometric mean ratios of the Cmax and AUC0-tlast were 88.02 - 103.11% and 98.19 - 102.06%, respectively. CONCLUSION: This single-dose study has shown that the test and reference favipiravir products met the required bioequivalence criteria. Besides, both products were well tolerated and safe.

A novel LC-MS/MS method for determination of the potential antiviral candidate favipiravir for the emergency treatment of SARS-CoV-2 virus in human plasma: Application to a bioequivalence study in Egyptian human volunteers.

A novel, fast and sensitive LC-MS/MS method was developed and validated for the bioanalysis of the antiviral agent favipiravir (FAV); a promising candidate for treatment of SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) in human plasma using pyrazinamide as an internal standard (IS). Simple protein precipitation was adopted for plasma sample preparation using methanol. Chromatographic separation was accomplished on Eclipse plus C18 column (50 × 4.6 mm, 3.5 µm) using a mobile phase composed of methanol-0.2 % acetic acid (20:80, v/v) pumped at a flow rate 0.6 mL/min in an isocratic elution mode. The API4500 triple quadrupole tandem mass spectrometer was operated with multiple-reaction monitoring (MRM) in negative electrospray ionization interface for FAV and positive for IS. The MRM function was used for quantification, with the transitions set at m/z 156.00→ 113.00 and m/z 124.80→ 81.00 for FAV and IS. The method was optimized and fully validated in accordance to US-FDA guidelines. Linearity was acquired over a concentration range of 100.0-20000.0 ng/mL by computing using weighted linear regression strategy (1/x2). The proposed method was effectively applied for the pharmacokinetic evaluation of FAV and to demonstrate the bioequivalence of a new FAV formulation (test) and reference product in healthy Egyptian human volunteers.

Tackling the challenges of nanomedicines: are we ready?

PURPOSE: This review provides an overview of the proceedings of the symposium "Tackling the Challenges of Nanomedicines: Are We Ready?" organized by the International Pharmaceutical Federation (FIP) Hospital Pharmacy Section and Non-Biological Complex Drugs (NBCDs) Working Group at the 2019 FIP World Congress of Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical Sciences. Debate centered on reasons underlying the current complex regulatory landscape for nanomedicines and their follow-on products (referred to as nanosimilars) and the pivotal role of hospital pharmacists in selecting, handling, and guiding usage of nanomedicines and nanosimilars. SUMMARY: The evaluation and use of nanomedicines are recognized among scientific, pharmaceutical, and regulatory bodies as complex. Interchangeability and substitutability of nanomedicines and nanosimilars are confounded by a lack of pharmaceutical and pharmacological equivalence, reflecting the inherent complex nature of these drug products and manufacturing processes. Consequences include implications for clinical safety and efficacy and, ultimately, comparability. Local regulatory approvals of some nanomedicines have occurred, but there is no standard to ensure streamlined evaluation and use of consistent measures of therapeutic equivalence of reference products and their nanosimilars. Hospital pharmacists are expected to be experts in the selection, handling, and substitution of nanomedicines and familiarize themselves with the limitations of current methods of assessing pharmaceutical and clinical equivalence of nanosimilars in order to ensure informed formulary decision-making and eventual patient benefit. CONCLUSION: Supportive guidance for pharmacists focusing on the substitutability and/or interchangeability of nanomedicines and their nanosimilars is needed. Current FIP guidance for pharmacists on therapeutic interchange and substitution should be extended to include nanomedicines and nanosimilars.