Parametric Tolerance Interval (PTI) Test for Delivered Dose Uniformity (DDU) for Orally Inhaled and Nasal Drug Products (OINDP) Michael Golden On behalf.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Presented by Bo Olsson (AstraZeneca)
Advertisements

ICH Q4B Regulatory Acceptance of Analytical Procedures and/or Acceptance Criteria (RAAPAC) Overview and Update Robert H. King, Sr. Office of Pharmaceutical.
USP and Dissolution Testing Advisory Committee for Pharmaceutical Sciences 2 May 2005 Will Brown Staff Liaison to the Biopharmaceutics Expert Committee.
Statistical Approaches to Addressing the Requirements of the New FDA Process Validation Guidance for Small Molecules 1 Jason Marlin, MS/T Statistics, Eli.
Parametric Tolerance Interval (PTI) Test for Delivered Dose Uniformity (DDU) for Orally Inhaled and Nasal Drug Products (OINDP) Michael Golden On behalf.
Rapid Microbiology Methods A Regulatory Viewpoint Bryan S. Riley, Ph.D. U.S. Food and Drug Administration Center for Drug Evaluation and Research Office.
© 2009 Perkin Elmer As Speciation in Apple Juice Charles Schneider, Presenter Kenneth Neubauer, Co-Author PerkinElmer.
© red ©
Pharmaceutical Product Quality Assurance Through CMC Drug Development Process Presented by Darlene Rosario (Aradigm) 21 October 2003 Meeting of the Advisory.
Individual Bioequivalence Lawrence J. Lesko, Ph.D. Director Office of Clinical Pharmacology and Biopharmaceutics Advisory Committee for Pharmaceutical.
FDA Nasal BA/BE Guidance Overview
Greenhouse Gas CEQA Significance Threshold Stakeholder Working Group #13 August 26, 2009 SCAQMD Diamond Bar, California.
Unit #7 - Basic Quality Control for the Clinical Laboratory
September 2006PQRI Training Course1 Best Practices for OINDP Pharmaceutical Development Programs Leachables and Extractables VIII. Quality Control and.
Achieving and Demonstrating “Quality-by-Design” with Respect to Drug Release/dissolution Performance for Conventional or Immediate Release Solid Oral Dosage.
1 Process to Address Specifications for Delivered Dose Uniformity of Inhaled and Nasal Drug Products Presented by Robert O’Neill, Ph.D. Chair ACPS Working.
CDS Operational Risk Management - October 28, 2005 Existing Methodologies for Operational Risk Mitigation - CDS’s ERM Program ACSDA Seminar - October 26.
Analysis and Visualization Approaches to Assess UDU Capability Presented at MBSW May 2015 Jeff Hofer, Adam Rauk 1.
2015 MBSW1 Quality Assurance Test of Delivered Dose Uniformity of Multi-dose Spray and Inhalation Drug Products Drs. Yi Tsong 1, Xiaoyu (Cassie) Dong*
1 Bioequivalence of Highly Variable Drugs: Regulatory Perspectives Sam H. Haidar, R.Ph., Ph.D. Pharmacometrics Office of Generic Drugs.
John R. MurphyACPS 10/ Zero Tolerance Criteria Do Not Assure Product Quality John R. Murphy, Ph.D. Meeting of the Advisory Committee for Pharmaceutical.
ACPS Meeting, October 19-20, 2004 BioINequivalence: Concept and Definition Lawrence X. Yu, Ph. D. Director for Science Office of Generic Drugs, OPS, CDER,
Parametric Tolerance Interval Test for Delivered Dose Uniformity (DDU) Working Group Update Moheb M. Nasr, Ph.D. Office of New Quality Assessment (ONDQA,
Bioequivalence Studies and Other Recommendations for Orally Inhaled and Nasal Drug Products: Work of the ITFG/IPAC-RS Collaboration Presented by Cynthia.
Abbreviated Donor History Questionnaire: Background and Introduction Sharyn Orton, Ph.D. OBRR/CBER/FDA Blood Products Advisory Committee March 2005.
PhRMA Perspective on FDA Final Report FDA Advisory Committee on Pharmaceutical Sciences October 20, 2004 G.P. Migliaccio, Pfizer Inc.
The USP Performance Test Dissolution Systems Suitability Studies Walter W. Hauck, Ph.D. USP Consultant Presentation to Advisory Committee for Pharmaceutical.
Meiyu Shen, PhD Collaborators: Xiaoyu Dong, Ph.D., Yi Tsong, PhD
COMPARABILITY PROTOCOLUPDATE ADVISORY COMMITTEE FOR PHARMACEUTICAL SCIENCE Manufacturing Subcommittee July 20-21, 2004 Stephen Moore, Ph.D. Chemistry Team.
DNPC08 Review of Standard LDZ System Charges 6 September 2010.
Guidance Update: Average, Population, and Individual Approaches to Establishing Bioequivalence Mei-Ling Chen, Ph.D. Associate Director Office of Pharmaceutical.
Blend Uniformity: Update Ajaz S. Hussain, Ph.D.. Background Issue: Assuring and documenting “adequacy of mixing” operations –PQRI’s Proposal Stratified.
1 Dose Content Uniformity for Aerosol Products Wallace P. Adams, Ph.D. OPS/IO Advisory Committee for Pharmaceutical Science 13 March 2003 Rockville, MD.
USE OF UNCERTAINTY OF MEASUREMENT IN TESTING ROHAN PERERA MSc ( UK ), ISO/IEC Technical Assessor, Metrology Consultant.
1 PTIT for DCU of OINDP: Approaches to Resolution of Identified Issues Wallace P. Adams, Ph.D. OPS/IO Advisory Committee for Pharmaceutical Science 21.
ITFG/IPAC Collaboration Introduction OVERVIEW OF ITFG/IPAC COLLABORATION Presented by: Harris Cummings, PhD 26 April 2000 Rockville, MD.
Bioequivalence Criteria Research Plan Stella G. Machado, Ph.D. Office of Biostatistics and the Replicate Design Technical Committee Advisory Committee.
Lawrence X. Yu, Ph.D. Director for Science Office of Generic Drugs, OPS, CDER, FDA ACPS Meeting, ACPS Meeting, Oct. 22, 2003 Office of Generic Drugs Research.
Orally Inhaled and Nasal Drug Products Subcommittee Introduction and Objectives Eric B. Sheinin Deputy Director Office of Pharmaceutical Science Center.
Data Analysis. Statistics - a powerful tool for analyzing data 1. Descriptive Statistics - provide an overview of the attributes of a data set. These.
Orally Inhaled and Nasal Drug Products (OINDP) Subcommittee Report to the Advisory Committee for Pharmaceutical Sciences Rockville, Maryland November 15,
ICAJ/PAB - Improving Compliance with International Standards on Auditing Planning an audit of financial statements 19 July 2014.
3M Drug Delivery Systems 3 Introduction The headspace of pressurized metered dose inhaler (MDI) canisters is filled by the vapor of volatile components,
Ajaz S. Hussain, Ph.D. Office of Pharmaceutical Sciences CDER, FDA October 21, 2003 Dose Content Uniformity: Parametric Tolerance Interval Approach.
Office of Pharmaceutical Science OPS Center for Drug Evaluation and Research CDER FDA Food and Drug Administration HHS Health and Human Services 1 Advisory.
An Assessment of IPAC-RS’ Proposal Walter W. Hauck, Ph.D. Biostatistics Section Division of Clinical Pharmacology Thomas Jefferson University Philadelphia,
2016 Primary Assessment Update 27th September 2016
Interactions with the implementation of RIIO-T1
MSA / Gage Capability (GR&R)
Sheffield Performance Overview
Discussion Discuss your results.
Analysis by: Kevin Gallagher (PPG Industries) Sept 26, 2017
Statistics in Applied Science and Technology
2005 MRG stakeholder day Concerns and proposals of the downstream oil industry J-F. Larivé, CONCAWE.
Goods Packed by Measure
USP and Dissolution Testing
USP and Dissolution Testing
LDZ System Charges – Structure Methodology 26 July 2010
Quantitative Methods in HPELS HPELS 6210
Long Association Task Force
Post WG LC NMDA datastore architecture draft
Change Assurance Update
Transmitted by the expert from ISO
EER Assurance December 2018
Week Ten – IT Audit Reporting
What Color is it?.
Water Directors meeting Warsaw, 8-9 December 2011
WG A Ecological Status Progress report April-October 2010
WLTP CoP Procedure for CO2/FC
KVI Change Management Survey July 2019
Presentation transcript:

Parametric Tolerance Interval (PTI) Test for Delivered Dose Uniformity (DDU) for Orally Inhaled and Nasal Drug Products (OINDP) Michael Golden On behalf of IPAC-RS Advisory Committee of Pharmaceutical Science October 26, 2005

2 Overview Communication is key to resolving the issue IPAC-RS presentation on 25 October was based on information received at 4 October meeting Revised case studies and OC curves based on 25 October information Coverage to reflect current OINDP still needs to be agreed ACPS endorsement of PTI test

3 FDA’s Proposal A standard PTI Test applied to pooled sample of beginning and end doses Target interval (’goalposts’) % LC Sample sizes n=10/30, 20/60, and 30/90 in the 1 st /2 nd tier Coverage of 87.5% is proposed as the standard Coverages ranging from 82.5 to 90% were also presented by FDA n=10 n=30n=20 n=60n=30 n=90 CoverageTier ITier IITier ITier IITier ITier II Test coefficients “Standard” test

4 IPAC-RS interpretation of FDA’s test – Tier 1 For the 20/60 test: –Select 10 units representative of the batch –Test each unit at Beginning and End –Calculate: Mean beginning (n=10) Mean end (n=10) Overall mean (n=20) Overall standard deviation (n=20) Acceptance Value as |100-overall mean| (k 20 )*overall SD –Overall mean – (k*SD) < 20 –Overall mean – 100 – (k*SD) > -20 –Evaluate Mean Beginning and Mean End results for compliance with –Evaluate Acceptance Value for compliance with goalposts If any of the acceptance criteria are not met, go to Tier 2 (therefore, no batch failures at Tier 1).

5 IPAC-RS interpretation of FDA’s test – Tier 2 For the 20/60 test: –Select 20 additional units representative of the batch –Test each unit at Beginning and End –Calculate: Mean beginning (n=30) Mean end (n=30) Overall mean (n=60) Overall standard deviation (n=60) Acceptance Value as |100-overall mean| (k 60 )*overall SD –Overall mean – (k*SD) < 20 –Overall mean – 100 – (k*SD) > -20 –Evaluate Mean Beginning and Mean End results for compliance with –Evaluate Acceptance Value for compliance with goalposts If any of the acceptance criteria are not met, the test fails.

6 FDA’s proposal (87.5% coverage) is tighter than the 1998 MDI/DPI draft guidance test Batch mean at 97% LC

7 FDA proposal (87.5% coverage) requires significantly larger sample than 1998 MDI/DPI draft guidance test Batch mean at 97% LC

8 Updated IPAC-RS case studies (1) US commercial solution HFA MDI (preventer) 23 batches evaluated Sample means % LC Sample SDs % LC Coverage# pass 1 st tier# pass 2 nd tierTotal # pass of 231 of 222 of of 231 of 222 of of 232 of 322 of of 231 of 321 of 23 Results In this case study, 22 of 23 batches (96%) comply with the FDA proposal of 87.5% coverage Average sample size needed is 25

9 Updated IPAC-RS case studies (2) US commercial suspension HFA MDI (preventer) 28 batches evaluated Sample means % LC Sample SDs % LC Coverage# pass 1 st tier# pass 2 nd tierTotal # pass of 286 of 826 of of 287 of 1025 of of 288 of 1323 of of 289 of 1522 of 28 Results In this case study, 18 of 28 batches (82%) comply with the FDA proposal of 87.5% coverage Average sample size needed is 39

10 Updated IPAC-RS case studies (3) US commercial suspension HFA MDI (reliever) 26 batches evaluated Sample means % LC Sample SDs % LC Coverage# pass 1 st tier# pass 2 nd tierTotal # pass of 263 of 920 of of 266 of 1220 of of 2612 of 1820 of of 2611 of 1918 of 26 Results In this case study, 20 of 26 batches (77%) comply with the FDA proposal of 87.5% coverage Average sample size needed is 48

11 Conclusions from Updated Case Studies on US Commercial Products 12 of the 77 batches would have failed the FDA proposed ”87.5%” test and thus would not have been released. However, all 77 batches passed their approved specifications for uniformity and were suitable for their intended use The lowest coverage presented by FDA on October 4 th (82.5%) resulted in a pass rate of 77-96%, which is still unacceptable from both compliance and business perspectives These case studies illustrate why the FDA proposal is not acceptable to IPAC-RS

12 Updated Comparison of different DDU tests The figure indicates (1) that current FDA standard (green) is much more restrictive than other international requirements (brown and purple), (2) that IPAC-RS current positions (blue and yellow) represent a significant tightening compared to the initial proposals (black and pink) and provide a reasonable compromise between different international standards, and (3) that the FDA October 4 proposal is significantly tighter than current US requirements. Batch mean at 97% LC

13 Comparison of different DDU tests Figure shows (1) that OC curve for LR PTI test is a potential compromise between the IPAC-RS proposal and the FDA Draft Guidance, and that (2) neither of the PTI tests proposed by FDA October 25 are close to providing the regulatory relief required. What coverage is required to move OC curve for FDA PTI test to position of LR test OC curve? Batch mean at 97% LC

14 Match of OC curves for FDA and IPAC-RS test Figure shows that if coverage is reduced to 70%, an FDA PTI test which matches the OC curve of LR PTI test for low SDs is obtained. This test (k 20 =1.77, k 60 =1.37) provides some regulatory relief and is potentially acceptable to OINDP Industry. Batch mean at 97% LC

15 Updated OC Curves for US Approved OINDP (Frequent Exceptions From Guidance) Subset of DDU Specifications Approved by FDA (24 products from ) Batch mean at 100% LC Red: FDA draft guidance Green: FDA Proposal 20/ % coverage Yellow: IPAC-RS 20/ % coverage LR PTI

16 Updated Comments on FDA Proposal The FDA proposal is tighter than the 1998 MDI/DPI draft guidance test The design coverage in FDA’s proposal will need to be significantly reduced to have an acceptable quality standard because the coverage required when the mean is off target is higher than the design point This proposal results in very significant increase in sample size compared to current requirements due to frequent use of tier 2.

17 IPAC-RS Conclusions Further accelerated dialogue is needed to reach a consensus quality standard for DDU IPAC-RS is flexible about the methodology of the test as long as the required quality standard is attainable –The majority of modern OINDPs should be able to comply with the agreed quality standard using the ”standard” sample size (20/60)

18 Remaining Issues/Details Confirmation that IPAC-RS is accurately interpreting and running the FDA’s proposed test –Confirmation that it is not possible to fail the batch at Tier 1 Appropriate quality standard, i.e., coverage

19 Question to ACPS Would you support the PTI test for control of DDU for OINDP AND endorse the WG to continue discussion to agree an quality standard that is appropriate for the majority of modern OINDPs?