In vitro and In silico biopharmaceutic regulatory guidelines for generic bioequivalence for oral products: Comparison among various regulatory agencies.

Generic drug development is a complex process that involves development of formulation similar to reference product. Because of the complexity associated with generic drug development, many regulatory agencies have come up with various guidelines. Out of many guidelines, the biopharmaceutics classification system that was introduced in 1995 based on aqueous solubility and permeability helped many pharmaceutical scientists across the globe to utilize the tool for formulation development, waiver of in vivo studies. Later on in vitro guidelines based on dissolution and in vitro in vivo correlation were introduced by many regulatory agencies with an intent to reduce number of in vivo human testing thereby facilitating shorter development time and faster approvals and launch. Most recently, understanding the importance in silico approaches such as physiologically based pharmacokinetic modelling, regulatory agencies such as United States Food and Drug Administration (USFDA) and European Middle East and Africa (EMA) came up with modelling guidance documents. Even though consensus exists between guidance documents from various regulatory agencies, still there are many minor to major differences exists between these guidance documents that needs to be considered while submitting a generic drug application. This review aims to compare all the in vitro and in silico guidance documents from major regulatory agencies with emphasis on latest trends and technologies combined with regulatory acceptability with an intention to harmonize regulations. Guidance documents from major regulatory agencies such as USFDA, EMA, World Health Organization, International Council for Harmonization and other emerging markets were compared. Similarities &differences among these guidance documents are critically reviewed to provide the reader a detailed overview of these guidance documents at one place.

[Analysis of Learner Characteristics Affecting Learning Outcomes in the Field of Pharmaceutical Law].

To contribute to research on the effective practice of pharmaceutical law, we analyzed the learner characteristics that influence learning outcomes in this field at Kitasato University School of Pharmacy. Specifically, we conducted a forced entry multiple regression analysis. The explanatory variables were the learner's gender, course, university entrance examination format, course year progression, completion of related subjects, and submission of class quizzes, while examination performance in pharmaceutical law was the response variable. The learners' course of study and submission of class quizzes were found to have a significant influence on the examination results. The examination performance of students enrolled in a four-year course was 14.4% lower than students enrolled in a six-year course, while students with records of not submitting the class quizzes scored 8.4% lower than those who submitted all the quizzes. It is probable that there was a fundamental difference between the academic ability of the students enrolled in the two courses that affected the examination results. The fact that the submission of class quizzes had an effect on the examination results may be useful in developing a learning guide for the students. To further enhance the evidence of the analysis of learner characteristics in this field, obtaining the results of joint research with other universities is necessary.

CDx, NGS and regulation: five perspectives from the Pistoia Alliance.

Companion diagnostics (CDx) are essential to the practice of precision medicine. Next-generation sequencing is an increasingly important tool in the development of CDx. However, for CDx to be deployed, many different biopharma industry sectors need to collaborate. This paper outlines some of the challenges and opportunities perceived by the biopharmaceutical industry, the Europe Molecular Quality Network, a regulatory agency, a notified body and a CDx service provider.

The Discriminatory Power of the BCS-Based Biowaiver: A Retrospective With Focus on Essential Medicines.

This article summarizes historic developments, recent expert opinions, and (currently) unresolved challenges concerning the Biopharmaceutics Classification System (BCS)-based Biowaiver. An overview of approval statistics and application potential, case examples addressing the discriminatory power of the procedure, as well as an outlook on possible refinements in the future are provided and critically discussed. Over the last decade, regulatory guidance documents have been harmonized, for example, following scientific consent on allowing biowaivers for BCS class III drugs, making over 50% of orally administered drugs on the World Health Organization Essential Medicines List eligible for an abbreviated approval. Biowaiver monographs that present a complete risk-benefit evaluation for individual drugs have been issued by the International Pharmaceutical Federation for more than 25% of those drugs with the long-range aim of covering all essential drugs. Unresolved issues that have emerged from reported examples of false-negative and false-positive outcomes in the literature demand further adjustments to the regulatory requirements. Possible solutions for resolving these issues are the use of modeling and simulation and refined biorelevant in vitro tests that are better able to discriminate between dosage forms with unequal performance in vivo, potentially allowing biowaivers for selected BCS II drugs.

Interchangeability Of Biological Drug Products-FDA Draft Guidance.

The Biological Price Competition and Innovation Act (BPCI Act) of 2009 established a pathway for the approval of biosimilars and interchangeable biosimilars in the United States. The Food Drug Administration (FDA) has issued several guidances on the development and assessment of biosimilars which implement the BPCI Act. In particular, a recent draft guidance on the interchangeability of biological products presents an overview of scientific considerations on the demonstration of interchangeability with a reference product. The present communication provides a general summary of the draft guidance and briefly observes a few current issues on interchangeability.

A Comparison of Coverage Restrictions for Biopharmaceuticals and Medical Procedures.

BACKGROUND: Differences in payer evaluation and coverage of pharmaceuticals and medical procedures suggest that coverage may differ for medications and procedures independent of their clinical benefit. We hypothesized that coverage for medications is more restricted than corresponding coverage for nonmedication interventions. METHODS: We included top-selling medications and highly utilized procedures. For each intervention-indication pair, we classified value in terms of cost-effectiveness (incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year), as reported by the Tufts Medical Center Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Registry. For each intervention-indication pair and for each of 10 large payers, we classified coverage, when available, as either "more restrictive" or as "not more restrictive," compared with a benchmark. The benchmark reflected the US Food and Drug Administration label information, when available, or pertinent clinical guidelines. We compared coverage policies and the benchmark in terms of step edits and clinical restrictions. Finally, we regressed coverage restrictiveness against intervention type (medication or nonmedication), controlling for value (cost-effectiveness more or less favorable than a designated threshold). RESULTS: We identified 392 medication and 185 procedure coverage decisions. A total of 26.3% of the medication coverage and 38.4% of the procedure coverage decisions were more restrictive than their corresponding benchmarks. After controlling for value, the odds of being more restrictive were 42% lower for medications than for procedures. Including unfavorable tier placement in the definition of "more restrictive" greatly increased the proportion of medication coverage decisions classified as "more restrictive" and reversed our findings. CONCLUSIONS: Therapy access depends on factors other than cost and clinical benefit, suggesting potential health care system inefficiency.

Impact of the US FDA "Biopharmaceutics Classification System" (BCS) Guidance on Global Drug Development.

The FDA guidance on application of the biopharmaceutics classification system (BCS) for waiver of in vivo bioequivalence (BE) studies was issued in August 2000. Since then, this guidance has created worldwide interest among biopharmaceutical scientists in regulatory agencies, academia, and industry toward its implementation and further expansion. This article describes how the review implementation of this guidance was undertaken at the FDA and results of these efforts over last dozen years or so across the new, and the generic, drug domains are provided. Results show that greater than 160 applications were approved, or tentatively approved, based on the BCS approach across multiple therapeutic areas; an additional significant finding was that at least 50% of these approvals were in the central nervous system (CNS) area. These findings indicate a robust utilization of the BCS approach toward reducing unnecessary in vivo BE studies and speeding up availability of high quality pharmaceutical products. The article concludes with a look at the adoption of this framework by regulatory and health policy organizations across the globe, and FDA's current thinking on areas of improvement of this guidance.

Medicines for Pediatric Patients-Biopharmaceutical, Developmental, and Regulatory Considerations.

This commentary reflects current developments in pediatric medicine. The underpinning legislation in both Europe and the United States has led to the initiation of an increased number of clinical trials in the pediatric population, but there are still a number of outstanding issues within this field. These include the differences in the physiology between adults and the very heterogeneous nature of pediatric patients. There is an ongoing scientific debate on the applicability of a Pediatric Biopharmaceutical Classification System to define when waivers for bioequivalence studies can be supported by in vitro dissolution. However, a challenge is that in vitro models should adequately mimic the physiology of different pediatric age-groups and dose definition is another critical aspect. There is a tendency for off-label use of established adult medicines, resulting in increased adverse events and decreased efficacy in the target population. Recent advances in physiologically based pharmacokinetic modelling may be used to provide valuable input into these discussions, but there are currently still many knowledge gaps. It is encouraging that there is a global recognition of these deficiencies and substantial funding in the field of basic research is being provided, for example, within Europe the Innovative Medicines Initiative consortium.

The publishing and patenting strategies of successful university spinoffs in the biopharmaceutical industry.

Firms in the biopharmaceutical industry send signals to investors about the value of their knowledge by disclosing it in the form of patents and publications. In this way, they can gain reputation even before having products on the market. This paper compares the patenting and publishing activities of university spinoffs with other biopharmaceutical firms. The findings suggest that successful university spinoffs and successful other firms (not university spinoffs) tend to follow different knowledge disclosure strategies. Whereas successful university spinoffs tend to emphasize the scientific value of their knowledge and gain reputation through their high-quality publications, other successful firms tend to emphasize the commercial value of their knowledge and gain reputation through high-quality patents.

Scientific and Regulatory Considerations in Solid Oral Modified Release Drug Product Development.

This review presents scientific and regulatory considerations for the development of solid oral modified release (MR) drug products. It includes a rationale for patient-focused development based on Quality-by-Design (QbD) principles. Product and process understanding of MR products includes identification and risk-based evaluation of critical material attributes (CMAs), critical process parameters (CPPs), and their impact on critical quality attributes (CQAs) that affect the clinical performance. The use of various biopharmaceutics tools that link the CQAs to a predictable and reproducible clinical performance for patient benefit is emphasized. Product and process understanding lead to a more comprehensive control strategy that can maintain product quality through the shelf life and the lifecycle of the drug product. The overall goal is to develop MR products that consistently meet the clinical objectives while mitigating the risks to patients by reducing the probability and increasing the detectability of CQA failures.

Implementing the Biopharmaceutics Classification System in Drug Development: Reconciling Similarities, Differences, and Shared Challenges in the EMA and US-FDA-Recommended Approaches.

The US-FDA recently posted a draft guideline for industry recommending procedures necessary to obtain a biowaiver for immediate-release oral dosage forms based on the Biopharmaceutics Classification System (BCS). This review compares the present FDA BCS biowaiver approach, with the existing European Medicines Agency (EMA) approach, with an emphasis on similarities, difficulties, and shared challenges. Some specifics of the current EMA BCS guideline are compared with those in the recently published draft US-FDA BCS guideline. In particular, similarities and differences in the EMA versus US-FDA approaches to establishing drug solubility, permeability, dissolution, and formulation suitability for BCS biowaiver are critically reviewed. Several case studies are presented to illustrate the (i) challenges of applying for BCS biowaivers for global registration in the face of differences in the EMA and US-FDA BCS biowaiver criteria, as well as (ii) challenges inherent in applying for BCS class I or III designation and common to both jurisdictions.

A Roadmap for the Implementation of Continued Process Verification.

In 2014, the members of the BioPhorum Operations Group (BPOG) produced a 100-page continued process verification case study, entitled "Continued Process Verification: An Industry Position Paper with Example Protocol". This case study captures the thought processes involved in creating a continued process verification plan for a new product in response to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration's guidance on the subject introduced in 2011. In so doing, it provided the specific example of a plan developed for a new molecular antibody product based on the "A MAb Case Study" that preceded it in 2009.This document provides a roadmap that draws on the content of the continued process verification case study to provide a step-by-step guide in a more accessible form, with reference to a process map of the product life cycle. It could be used as a basis for continued process verification implementation in a number of different scenarios: For a single product and process;For a single site;To assist in the sharing of data monitoring responsibilities among sites;To assist in establishing data monitoring agreements between a customer company and a contract manufacturing organization. LAY ABSTRACT: The U.S. Food and Drug Administration issued guidance on the management of manufacturing processes designed to improve quality and control of drug products. This involved increased focus on regular monitoring of manufacturing processes, reporting of the results, and the taking of opportunities to improve. The guidance and practice associated with it is known as continued process verification This paper summarizes good practice in responding to continued process verification guidance, gathered from subject matter experts in the biopharmaceutical industry.

Regulatory Perspectives on Strength-Dependent Dissolution Profiles and Biowaiver Approaches for Immediate Release (IR) Oral Tablets in New Drug Applications.

Dissolution profile comparisons are used by the pharmaceutical industry to assess the similarity in the dissolution characteristics of two formulations to decide whether the implemented changes, usually minor/moderate in nature, will have an impact on the in vitro/in vivo performance of the drug product. When similarity testing is applied to support the approval of lower strengths of the same formulation, the traditional approach for dissolution profile comparison is not always applicable for drug products exhibiting strength-dependent dissolution and may lead to incorrect conclusions about product performance. The objective of this article is to describe reasonable biopharmaceutic approaches for developing a biowaiver strategy for low solubility, proportionally similar/non-proportionally similar in composition immediate release drug products that exhibit strength-dependent dissolution profiles. The paths highlighted in the article include (1) approaches to address biowaiver requests, such as the use of multi-unit dissolution testing to account for sink condition differences between the higher and lower strengths; (2) the use of a single- vs. strength-dependent dissolution method; and (3) the use of single- vs. strength-dependent dissolution acceptance criteria. These approaches are cost- and time-effective and can avoid unnecessary bioequivalence studies.

BCS Biowaivers: Similarities and Differences Among EMA, FDA, and WHO Requirements.

The Biopharmaceutics Classification System (BCS), based on aqueous solubility and intestinal permeability, has enjoyed wide use since 1995 as a mechanism for waiving in vivo bioavailability and bioequivalence studies. In 2000, the US-FDA was the first regulatory agency to publish guidance for industry describing how to meet criteria for requesting a waiver of in vivo bioavailability and bioequivalence studies for highly soluble, highly permeable (BCS Class I) drugs. Subsequently, the World Health Organization (WHO) and European Medicines Agency (EMA) published guidelines recommending how to obtain BCS biowaivers for BCS Class III drugs (high solubility, low permeability), in addition to Class I drugs. In 2015, the US-FDA became better harmonized with the EMA and WHO following publication of two guidances for industry outlining criteria for obtaining BCS biowaivers for both Class I and Class III drugs. A detailed review and comparison of the BCS Class I and Class III criteria currently recommended by the US-FDA, EMA, and WHO revealed good convergence of the three agencies with respect to BCS biowaiver criteria. The comparison also suggested that, by applying the most conservative of the three jurisdictional approaches, it should be possible for a sponsor to design the same set of BCS biowaiver studies in preparing a submission for worldwide filing to satisfy US, European, and emerging market regulators. It is hoped that the availability of BCS Class I and Class III biowaivers in multiple jurisdictions will encourage more sponsors to request waivers of in vivo bioavailability/bioequivalence testing using the BCS approach.

Manufacturing of Plasma-Derived Medicinal Products: Qualification Process of Plasma Suppliers.

Manufacturers of human plasma-derived products ensure, through their qualification departments, the quality and safety of human plasma-the biological starting material of the industrial fractionation process. The qualification department has established written procedures to approve the plasma supplier (i.e., initial qualification) according to current regulations and to the manufacturer's plasma specifications. Once the plasma supplier is approved, a periodical assessment is necessary (i.e., continuous qualification) to guarantee the level of compliance. In addition, a signed quality agreement between the plasma supplier and the manufacturer defines the duties and the responsibilities of both parties. The qualification department implements the following requirements to ensure the quality of plasma from suppliers: (i) a regular audit program to confirm the satisfactory initiation of the quality arrangements and (ii) monitoring of the quality and safety of plasma including critical quality parameters. For several years, the Grifols Qualification Department has worked with several plasma suppliers of the European Union (EU) and has performed a detailed, continuous assessment of the audits, deviations, operational incidences, epidemiological data, and quality controls. In this article, we will report data from this Grifols assessment from 2010 through 2013 on plasma suppliers from four EU countries. In the future, additional data will be collected and studied to confirm and verify the conclusions and trends observed in this study.

The roles of patents and research and development incentives in biopharmaceutical innovation.

Patents and other forms of intellectual property protection play essential roles in encouraging innovation in biopharmaceuticals. As part of the "21st Century Cures" initiative, Congress is reviewing the policy mechanisms designed to accelerate the discovery, development, and delivery of new treatments. Debate continues about how best to balance patent and intellectual property incentives to encourage innovation, on the one hand, and generic utilization and price competition, on the other hand. We review the current framework for accomplishing these dual objectives and the important role of patents and regulatory exclusivity (together, the patent-based system), given the lengthy, costly, and risky biopharmaceutical research and development process. We summarize existing targeted incentives, such as for orphan drugs and neglected diseases, and we consider the pros and cons of proposed voluntary or mandatory alternatives to the patent-based system, such as prizes and government research and development contracting. We conclude that patents and regulatory exclusivity provisions are likely to remain the core approach to providing incentives for biopharmaceutical research and development. However, prizes and other voluntary supplements could play a useful role in addressing unmet needs and gaps in specific circumstances.

Biopharmaceutics classification system-based biowaivers for generic oncology drug products: case studies.

Establishing bioequivalence (BE) of drugs indicated to treat cancer poses special challenges. For ethical reasons, often, the studies need to be conducted in cancer patients rather than in healthy volunteers, especially when the drug is cytotoxic. The Biopharmaceutics Classification System (BCS) introduced by Amidon (1) and adopted by the FDA, presents opportunities to avoid conducting the bioequivalence studies in humans. This paper analyzes the application of the BCS approach by the generic pharmaceutical industry and the FDA to oncology drug products. To date, the FDA has granted BCS-based biowaivers for several drug products involving at least four different drug substances, used to treat cancer. Compared to in vivo BE studies, development of data to justify BCS waivers is considered somewhat easier, faster, and more cost effective. However, the FDA experience shows that the approval times for applications containing in vitro studies to support the BCS-based biowaivers are often as long as the applications containing in vivo BE studies, primarily because of inadequate information in the submissions. This paper deliberates some common causes for the delays in the approval of applications requesting BCS-based biowaivers for oncology drug products. Scientific considerations of conducting a non-BCS-based in vivo BE study for generic oncology drug products are also discussed. It is hoped that the information provided in our study would help the applicants to improve the quality of ANDA submissions in the future.

Biosimilars: where we were and where we are.

Recent progress in biosimilars development is overviewed, with attention to the history of issues and processes leading to current regulations, and to scientific considerations, including progress on design and operational implementation issues that arise and are peculiar to biosimilars trial design and implementation.

Paediatric oral biopharmaceutics: key considerations and current challenges.

The complex process of oral drug absorption is influenced by a host of drug and formulation properties as well as their interaction with the gastrointestinal environment in terms of drug solubility, dissolution, permeability and pre-systemic metabolism. For adult dosage forms the use of biopharmaceutical tools to aid in the design and development of medicinal products is well documented. This review considers current literature evidence to guide development of bespoke paediatric biopharmaceutics tools and reviews current understanding surrounding extrapolation of adult methodology into a paediatric population. Clinical testing and the use of in silico models were also reviewed. The results demonstrate that further work is required to adequately characterise the paediatric gastrointestinal tract to ensure that biopharmaceutics tools are appropriate to predict performance within this population. The most vulnerable group was found to be neonates and infants up to 6 months where differences from adults were greatest.