Influence of Different Populations on Pharmacokinetic Bioequivalence Results: Can We Extrapolate Bioequivalence Results from One Population to Another?

Purpose: Over the last 15 years, an ever-increasing proportion of pharmacokinetic bioequivalence studies for European/North American generic submissions appeared to have been conducted in geographical/ethnic populations other than those for which the drug is marketed for. The results of pharmacokinetic bioequivalence studies have traditionally been considered to be insensitive to the population studied. However, several recent studies have suggested that this may not necessarily be true. The objective of this study was to investigate whether there were any concerns regarding the current practice of extrapolating bioequivalence study results from one geographic/ethnic population to another. METHODS: In order for a regulatory agency to use bioequivalence results from one population to another, two formulations assessed as bioequivalent under fasted and fed conditions in one population must be bioequivalent in a geographically/ethnically different population under both conditions. Unfortunately, bioequivalence studies between a generic and its reference product for one submission are conducted using only one geographical/ethnic population. As bioequivalence study results between two populations for the same generic and reference products are not available, the food effect for the same reference product between two populations was compared. This is based on the rationale that if two products are bioequivalent under both fasted and fed conditions in two populations, even if there are PK differences in the product exposures between these two populations, the test to reference ratio, as well as the food effect, will remain constant within each population. Food effect (fed/fasted ratio) was calculated using pharmacokinetic data from publicly available regulatory resources and compared between two geographical/ethnic populations using the same reference for each studied drug product. Meta-analyses were conducted. RESULTS: Statistically significant differences (P<0.05) were found in the food effect between two populations for nine out of the ten (90%) available studied products. Among these, an observed clinical difference was suggested in three out of nine (33%) products. CONCLUSION: These results suggest that bioequivalence results from one population may not always be representative of what may be found in another population.

Novel Approach for the Bioequivalence Assessment of Topical Cream Formulations: Model-Based Analysis of Tape Stripping Data Correctly Concludes BE and BIE.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was (a) to suggest a novel dermatopharmacokinetic (DPK) approach from which pharmacokinetic parameters relevant to the bioequivalence (BE) assessment of a topical formulation can be deduced while circumventing the need for numerous measurements and assumptions, and (b) to investigate whether this approach enables the correct conclusion of BE and bioinequivalence (BIE). METHODS: Bioequivalent and bioinequivalent formulations of acyclovir were compared versus a reference product (Zovirax®). Tape Stripping was conducted at only one dose duration during the uptake phase to generate drug content in stratum corneum versus time profiles, each time point corresponding to one stripped layer. Nonlinear mixed effect modeling (ADAPT5®) (MLEM algorithm) was used to fit the DPK data and to estimate the rate (Kin) and extent (FS) of drug absorption/input into the skin. Results were evaluated using the average BE approach. RESULTS: Estimated exposure metrics were within the usual BE limits for the bioequivalent formulation (FS: 102.4 [90%CI: 97.5-107.7]; Kin: 94.2 [90%CI: 83.7-106.0]), but outside those limits for the bioinequivalent formulation (FS: 43.4 [90%CI: 27.9-67.6]; Kin: 54.5 [90%CI: 36.6-81.1]). CONCLUSIONS: The proposed novel DPK approach was shown to be successful, robust and applicable to assess BE and BIE correctly between topical formulations.

Opportunities and Challenges Related to the Implementation of Model-Based Bioequivalence Criteria.

The science of bioequivalence and biosimilarity has greatly evolved over the past 3 decades. Current methods for assessing bioequivalence mostly rely on noncompartmental pharmacokinetic (PK) analyses, which have proven to be reliable and robust for most products. However, the development of more complex products is forcing scientists and regulators to consider alternative approaches, including those derived from model-based population PK analyses. This article will examine the strengths and weaknesses of standard noncompartmental methods and compare them to model-based approaches, including a comparison of metrics associated with each method. Specific situations for which model-based approaches could prove to be more suitable will be presented, as well as potential bioequivalence metrics that could be considered for bioequivalence comparisons. The opportunities and challenges that are associated with these novel methods will also be discussed.

Revisiting FDA's 1995 Guidance on Bioequivalence Establishment of Topical Dermatologic Corticosteroids: New Research Based Recommendations.

PURPOSE: As per the US FDA guidance issued on June 2, 1995, the establishment of bioequivalence for topical dermatologic corticosteroids is based on comparing the pharmacodynamic (PD) effects of Test and Reference products at the dose duration corresponding to the population ED50, determined either by naïve pooled data or nonlinear mixed effect modeling (NLME). The guidance was introduced using a study case example where the expectation maximization (EM) NLME algorithm, as implemented in P-PHARM®, was used. Although EM methods are relatively common, other methods such as the First-Order Conditional Estimation (FOCE) as implemented in the NONMEM® software are even more common. The objective of this study was to investigate the impact of using different parametric population modeling/analysis methods and distribution assumptions on population analysis results. METHODS: The dose duration-response data from 11 distinct skin blanching blinded pilot studies were fitted using FOCE (NONMEM®) and an EM algorithm (ADAPT5® (MLEM)). Three different Emax models were tested for each method. Population PD estimates and associated CV%, and the agreement between model predicted values and observed data were compared between the two methods. The impact of assuming different distributions of PD parameters was also investigated. RESULTS: The simple Emax model, as proposed in the FDA guidance, appeared to best characterize the data compared to more complex alternatives. The MLEM method in general appeared to provide better results than FOCE; lower population PD estimates with less inter-individual variability, and no variance shrinkage issues. The results also favored ln-normal versus normal distribution assumptions. CONCLUSIONS: The population ED50 estimates were influenced by both the type of population modeling methods and the distribution assumptions. We recommend updating the FDA guidance with more specific instructions related to the population approach to be used (EM-like versus FOCE-like methods) and to the normality assumptions that need to be set (ln-normal versus normal distribution).

Serotonergic antidepressants and perioperative bleeding risk: a systematic review.

INTRODUCTION: Serotonergic antidepressants (SAds) are known to increase bleeding events, with a number of recent studies investigating this risk in surgical settings. Our main objective was to synthesize the current evidence to evaluate the clinical importance of SAd-related bleeding risk in the perioperative period. METHODS: A systematic review of MEDLINE, Embase and PsychINFO until November 2013 was conducted in compliance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses statement. We examined the risk of perioperative bleeding adverse events in SAd users in comparison to controls. RESULTS: A total of 13 relevant studies were identified across a broad variety of surgical procedures. SAds were associated with an increased risk of perioperative bleeding (odds ratios [ORs] = 1.21 - 4.14) and blood transfusions (ORs = 0.93 - 3.71). CONCLUSIONS: SAds are associated with increased perioperative bleeding events, particularly abnormal bleeding and blood transfusions. From a clinical perspective, the potential bleeding risks of SAds in surgical settings need to be carefully weighed against their psychiatric benefits. Future research will need to investigate potential strategies to mitigate SAd-related bleeding risk in the surgical context.