Dissolution Similarity Requirements: How Similar or Dissimilar Are the Global Regulatory Expectations?
详细信息 查看全文
- 作者：Dorys Argelia Diaz ; Stephen T. Colgan ; Connie S. Langer…
- 关键词：chemistry manufacturing and controls (CMC) ; comparative dissolution ; f 2 ; global ; regulatory ; similarity factor
- 刊名：The AAPS Journal
- 出版年：2016
- 出版时间：January 2016
- 年：2016
- 卷：18
- 期：1
- 页码：15-22
- 全文大小：204 KB
- 参考文献：1.Sathe P, Tsong Y, Shah P. In vitro dissolution profile comparison: statistics and analysis, model dependent approach. Pharm Res. 1996;13(12):1799–803.PubMed CrossRef
2.Freitag G. Guidelines on dissolution profile comparison. Drug Inform J. 2001;35:865–74.
3.Xie F, Ji S, Cheng Z. In vitro dissolution similarity factor (f2) and in vivo bioequivalence criteria, how and when do they match? using a BCS class II drug as a simulation example. Eur J Pharm Sci. 2015;66:163–72.CrossRef
4.FDA Guidance for Industry. SUPAC-IR. Immediate release solid oral dosage forms. Scale-up and post approval changes. Chemistry, manufacturing and controls. In vitro dissolution testing and in vivo bioequivalence documentation. 1995.
5.European Medicines Agency. Committee for medicinal products for human use. Guideline on the investigation of bioequivalence CPMP/EWP/QWP/1401/98 Rev.1/Corr**. 2010.
6.Pharmaceuticals and Medical Devices Agency, Japan. Guideline for bioequivalence studies for formulation changes of oral solid dosage forms. English translation of Attachment 3 of Division-Notification 0229 No. 10 of the Pharmaceutical and Food Safet Bureau. 2012 February.
7.Liu Q, Davit BM, Cherstniakova SA, Dandamudi S, Walters J, Lee CH, et al. Common deficiencies with bioequivalence submissions in abbreviated new drug applications assessed by FDA. AAPS J. 2012;14(1):19–22.PubMed PubMedCentral CrossRef
8.Shah V, Cecil T, Srinivassan S, Williams R. Progressively reducing regulatory burden. AAPS J. 2014;16(4):621–4.PubMed PubMedCentral CrossRef
9.Rohilla S, Rohilla A, Nanda A. Biowaivers: criteria and requirements. Int J Pharmaceut Biol Arch. 2012;3(4):727–31.
10.Gupta E, Barends DM, Yamashita E, Lentz KA, Harmsze AM, Shah VP, et al. Review of global regulations concerning biowaivers for immediate release solid oral dosage forms. Eur J Pharm Sci. 2006;29:315–24.PubMed CrossRef
11.FDA Guidance For Industry. Bioavailability and bioequivalence studies for orally administered drug products, general considerations. 2003.
12.Kelly G. DISSOLUTION—Biowaivers in the United States, European Union, and Japan. Am Pharmaceut Rev. 2009;12(4):105–10.
13.Moore J, Flanner H. Mathematical comparison of dissolution profiles. Pharm Technol. 1996;20(6):64–74.
14.FDA Guidance for Industry. Dissolution testing of immediate release solid dosage forms. 1997.
15.Shah V, Tsong Y, Sathe P, Liu J. In vitro dissolution profile comparison—statistics and analysis of the similarity factor, f2. Pharm Res. 1998;15(6):889–96.PubMed CrossRef
16.Dekker T. Training workshop on assessment of quality part of Dossier. In World Health Organization Prequalification Programme; 2011; Copenhagen, Denmark.
17.Department of Health, Therapeutic Goods Administration, Australia. Minor variations to registered prescription medicines: Chemical Entities. Version 1.2. 2013 May.
18.National Health Surveillance Agency, Brazil. About the studies of pharmaceutical equivalence and comparative dissolution profile. Collegiate Directory. 2010 August; Resolution-RDC No. 31.
19.Health Canada. Drugs and Health Products. Post-Notice of Compliance (NOC) Changes: Quality document. 2013; File Number 13-107786-650.
20.China FDA. Center for Drug Evaluation. Technical guidelines for supplementary application of chemical drugs (The Second Draft). 2015 March.
21.Central Drugs Standard Control Organization, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Government of India. Guideline for bioavailability and bioequivalence studies. 2005.
22.Pharmaceutical and Food Safety Bureau, Japan. Guideline for Bioequivalence Studies of Oral Solid Preparations with Different Strengths. 2001 February; PMSB/ELD Notification Number 64, revised November 24, 2006.
23.Pharmaceutical Food and Safety Bureau, Japan. Guideline for Bioequivalence Studies of Oral Solid Formulations with Formulation Changes. 2000 February; PMSB/ELD Notification Number 67, Revised November 2006.
24.Pharmaceutical and Food Safety Bureau, Japan. The guideline for bioequivalence studies for supplemental formulations with different dosage forms. 2001 May; PMSB/ELD Notification Number 783.
25.Comisión Federal para la Protección contra Riesgos Sanitarios (COFEPRIS). Official Mexican Standard NOM-177-SSA1-2013. Official Gazette. 2013.
26.Drug Control Division, Thailand. Guidelines for the Conduct of Bioavailability and Bioequivalence Studies Adopted from “ASEAN Guidelines for the Conduct of Bioavailability and Bioequivalence Studies. 2009.
27.Ministry of Health, Republic of Turkey. Pharmaceuticals and pharmacy general directorate number B.10.0.IEG.0.10.00.03-301.99-.; On Bioequivalence Files 24305.
28.Medicines Control Council, Department of Health, Republic of South Africa. Registration of Medicines: Dissolution. 2007 June; Version 2.
29.Korea Ministry of Food and Drug Safety. KFDA guidelines for comparative dissolution test. 2010 June; KFDA Notification No. 2010-44. - 作者单位：Dorys Argelia Diaz (1)
Stephen T. Colgan (1)
Connie S. Langer (1)
Nagesh T. Bandi (2)
Michael D. Likar (3)
Leslie Van Alstine (3)
1. Worldwide Research and Development, Global Chemistry and Manufacturing Controls, Pfizer Inc, Eastern Point Road, Groton, Connecticut, 06340, USA
2. Worldwide Research and Development, Global Chemistry and Manufacturing Controls, Pfizer Inc, 100 Route 206 North, Peapack, New Jersey, 07977, USA
3. Worldwide Research and Development, Analytical Research and Development, Pfizer Inc, Eastern Point Road, Groton, Connecticut, 06340, USA - 刊物主题：Pharmacology/Toxicology; Biochemistry, general; Biotechnology; Pharmacy;
- 出版者：Springer US
- ISSN：1550-7416
文摘
The objective of this article is to compare and contrast the international expectations associated with the model-independent similarity factor approach to comparing dissolution profiles. This comparison highlights globally divergent regulatory requirements to meet local dissolution similarity requirements. In effect, experiments customized to meet the current international regulatory expectations for dissolution and drug release unnecessarily increase manufacturing costs, hinder science and risk-based approaches, increase collective regulatory burden, reduce continuous improvement and innovation, and potentially delay patient access to urgently needed medication. Comparative assessment of regulatory differences in applying dissolution to demonstrate product similarity is crucial to reduce non-scientifically justified experiments and foster collaborative harmonization among global regulatory health authorities and the pharmaceutical industry. KEY WORDS chemistry manufacturing and controls (CMC) comparative dissolution f 2 global regulatory similarity factor