Results from Replicate Design Studies in ANDAs Rabi Patnaik, Ph.D. Division of Bioequivalence Office of Generic Drugs Office of Pharmaceutical Science,

Slides:

Advertisements

Similar presentations

Applying Multilevel Models in Evaluation of Bioequivalence in Drug Trials Min Yang Prof of Medical Statistics Nottingham Clinical Trials Unit School of.

Advertisements

Dale P. Conner, Pharm.D. Division of Bioequivalence

Kamal K. Midha C.M., Ph.D, D.Sc College of Pharmacy and Nutrition,

Kyiv, TRAINING WORKSHOP ON PHARMACEUTICAL QUALITY, GOOD MANUFACTURING PRACTICE & BIOEQUIVALENCE Statistical Considerations for Bioequivalence.

Bioequivalence of Highly Variable (HV) Drugs: Clinical Implications Why HV Drugs are Safer Leslie Z. Benet, Ph.D. Professor of Biopharmaceutical Sciences.

Statistics for the Social Sciences Psychology 340 Spring 2005 Within Groups ANOVA.

Charles Bon 19 May Two-Way, Randomized Crossover Study Healthy, Normal Adults -48 to -12 Hour Check-in Overnight Diet and Activity Restrictions.

Federal Institute for Drugs and Medical Devices The BfArM is a Federal Institute within the portfolio of the Federal Ministry of Health 1 Regulatory Requirements.

ICH Q9: Quality Risk Management

WHO Prequalification Program Workshop, Kiev, Ukraine, June 25-27,2007.

Challenges and Opportunities in Enhancement of the CMC Section of NDAs: Quality – by - Design Ajaz S. Hussain, Ph.D. Deputy Director Office of Pharmaceutical.

Individual Bioequivalence Lawrence J. Lesko, Ph.D. Director Office of Clinical Pharmacology and Biopharmaceutics Advisory Committee for Pharmaceutical.

Interchangeability and study design Drs. Jan Welink Training workshop: Training of BE assessors, Kiev, October 2009.

ONDQA Perspective on Post Approval Changes Eric P. Duffy, PhD Director, Division of Post-Market Evaluation, ONDQA, CDER, FDA Public Meeting: Supplements.

FDA Nasal BA/BE Guidance Overview

Qian H. Li, Lawrence Yu, Donald Schuirmann, Stella Machado, Yi Tsong

Tanzania, August, 2006 Dr. Barbara Sterzik, BfArM, Bonn 1 Guidelines and Tools available TRS 937 and BTIF (Bioequivalence Trial Information Form)

Ensuring Physical Stability of Pharmaceuticals: Can/should we improve our ability to identify and prevent physical changes? Ajaz S. Hussain, Ph.D. Deputy.

Documentation of bioequivalence Drs. J. Welink Workshop on WHO prequalification requirements for reproductive health medicines, Jakarta, October 2009.

Fall 2013 Lecture 5: Chapter 5 Statistical Analysis of Data …yes the “S” word.

Establishing Drug release/Dissolution Specifications – QBD Approach Moheb M. Nasr, Ph.D. Office of New Drug Quality Assessment (ONDQA), OPS, CDER Advisory.

ArTiMist™ Clinical Trial Results By Mr Calvin Ross Sofitel Wentworth Hotel Sydney 14 April 2008 Eastland Medical Systems Ltd.

T tests comparing two means t tests comparing two means.

Exercise 5 Monte Carlo simulations, Bioequivalence and Withdrawal time

Challenges in Bioequivalence Evaluation of Special Dosage Forms

1 Bioequivalence of Highly Variable Drugs: Regulatory Perspectives Sam H. Haidar, R.Ph., Ph.D. Pharmacometrics Office of Generic Drugs.

Regulatory requirements Drs. Jan Welink Training workshop: Assessment of Interchangeable Multisource Medicines, Kenya, August 2009.

ACPS Meeting, October 19-20, 2004 BioINequivalence: Concept and Definition Lawrence X. Yu, Ph. D. Director for Science Office of Generic Drugs, OPS, CDER,

Highly Variable Drugs – Bioequivalence Issues: FDA Proposal Under Consideration Barbara M. Davit, J.D., Ph.D. Deputy Director, Division of Bioequivalence.

Parametric Tolerance Interval Test for Delivered Dose Uniformity (DDU) Working Group Update Moheb M. Nasr, Ph.D. Office of New Quality Assessment (ONDQA,

Statistics (cont.) Psych 231: Research Methods in Psychology.

Lecture 5: Chapter 5: Part I: pg Statistical Analysis of Data …yes the “S” word.

Waiver of In Vivo Bioequivalence Studies for Immediate Release Solid Oral Dosage Forms Based on a Biopharmaceutics Classification System Ajaz S. Hussain,

Evaluation of quality and interchangeability of medicinal products - WHO Training workshop / 5-9 November |1 | Prequalification programme: Priority.

Proposal for End-of-Phase 2A (EOP2A) Meetings Advisory Committee for Pharmaceutical Sciences Clinical Pharmacology Subcommittee November 17-18, 2003 Lawrence.

1 ORALLY INHALED AND NASAL DRUG PRODUCTS FOR LOCAL ACTION Current FDA BA/BE Background and Issues Wallace P. Adams, Ph.D. OPS/CDER/FDA OINDP Subcommittee.

Evaluation of quality and interchangeability of medicinal products - WHO Training workshop / 5-9 November |1 | Prequalification programme: Priority.

Statistical considerations Drs. Jan Welink Training workshop: Assessment of Interchangeable Multisource Medicines, Kenya, August 2009.

Clinical Pharmacology Subcommittee of the Advisory Committee for Pharmaceutical Science Meeting April Quantitative risk analysis using exposure-response.

Bioequivalence of Locally Acting Gastrointestinal Drugs: An Overview

1 EVALUATION OF BIOEQUIVALENCE FOR HIGHLY-VARIABLE DRUGS AND DRUG PRODUCTS Laszlo Endrenyi University of Toronto Laszlo Tothfalusi Semmelweis University.

Individual Bioequivalence: Strengths and Weaknesses of the Current Approach: View from the Generic Pharmaceutical Association by MDS Pharma Services FDA.

1 Serious Adverse Events Following Falsely Elevated Glucose Measurements Resulting from Administration of an IGIV Product Containing Maltose BPAC Meeting,

Bioequivalence Dr Mohammad Issa Saleh.

Drug Release Specification: In Vivo Relevance Ajaz S. Hussain, Ph.D. Deputy Director, OPS/CDER/FDA.

WHO Prequalification Programme June 2007 Training Workshop on Dissolution, Pharmaceutical Product Interchangeability and Biopharmaceutical Classification.

Guidance Update: Average, Population, and Individual Approaches to Establishing Bioequivalence Mei-Ling Chen, Ph.D. Associate Director Office of Pharmaceutical.

Pre-qualification Program: Priority Medicines Interchangeability of Multi Source Drug Products SALOMON STAVCHANSKY, PH.D. ALCON CENTENNIAL PROFESSOR OF.

Using Product Development Information to Address the Bioequivalence Challenges of Highly-variable Drugs Lawrence X. Yu, Ph. D. Director for Science Office.

Exact PK Equivalence for a bridging study Steven Novick, Harry Yang (MedImmune) and Xiang Zhang (NC State) NCB, October 2015.

BE Issues of HVD & HVDP Kamal K. Midha, Maureen Rawson Gordon McKay & John W. Hubbard PharmaLytics Inc. A Non-Profit Institute of the University of Saskatchewan.

Why Highly Variable Drugs are Safer Leslie Z. Benet, Ph.D. Professor of Biopharmaceutical Sciences University of California San Francisco FDA Advisory.

Experiment An experiment deliberately imposes a treatment on a group of objects or subjects in the interest of observing the response. Differs from an.

Bioequivalence Criteria Research Plan Stella G. Machado, Ph.D. Office of Biostatistics and the Replicate Design Technical Committee Advisory Committee.

Individual Bioequivalence: Have the Opinions of the Scientific Community Changed? Leslie Z. Benet, Ph.D. University of California San Francisco.

Evaluation of quality and interchangeability of medicinal products - WHO Training workshop / 5-9 November |1 | Prequalification programme: Priority.

Federal Institute for Drugs and Medical Devices The BfArM is a Federal Institute within the portfolio of the Federal Ministry of Health 1 Statistical Considerations.

Interchangeability and study design Drs. Jan Welink Training workshop: Assessment of Interchangeable Multisource Medicines, Kenya, August 2009.

Evaluation of a Scaling Approach for Highly Variable Drugs Sam H. Haidar, Ph.D., R.Ph. Office of Generic Drugs Advisory Committee for Pharmaceutical Sciences.

FDA Advisory Committee for Pharmaceutical Science and Clinical Pharmacology July 22-23, 2008 Introduction and Update Helen N. Winkle Director, Office of.

Statistical Criteria for Establishing Safety and Efficacy of Allergenic Products Tammy Massie, PhD Mathematical Statistician Team Leader Bacterial, Parasitic.

SOME ISSUES ON THE DETERMINATION OF BIOEQUIVALENCE FOR HIGHLY VARIABLE DRUGS Laszlo Endrenyi University of Toronto Laszlo Tothfalusi Semmelweis University.

The First Conference for Medicines Regulatory Authorities In Sudan and Neighboring Countries Khartoum December 2014 Alain PRAT, Technical Officer,

Evaluation of quality and interchangeability of medicinal products - EAC/EC/WHO Training workshop / September |1 | Prequalification programme:

Office of Pharmaceutical Science OPS Center for Drug Evaluation and Research CDER FDA Food and Drug Administration HHS Health and Human Services 1 Advisory.

Experimental Design.

Review of Chapter 11 Comparison of Two Populations

ICH Q9: Quality Risk Management

ICH Q9: Quality Risk Management

What are their purposes? What kinds?

Presentation transcript:

Results from Replicate Design Studies in ANDAs Rabi Patnaik, Ph.D. Division of Bioequivalence Office of Generic Drugs Office of Pharmaceutical Science, CDER Advisory Committee for Pharmaceutical Science Meeting CDER Advisory Committee Conference Room 5630 Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD November 29, 2001.

ABE IBE < ABE & IBE Criteria and Parameters Lower BE Limit < Test Mean - Ref. Mean < Upper BE Limit (Test Mean - Ref. Mean) 2 + (Subj*Form) 2 + (Test within-subj. SD 2 - Ref. within-subj. SD 2 ) Upper BE Limit *(Ref. within-subj. SD) 2 or (Regulatory within- subj. SD) 2 *use Ref. within-subj. SD if Ref. within-subj. SD > 0.2 (Reference-scaled) use Regulatory within-subj SD (0.20) if Ref. within-subj SD < 0.2 (Constant-scaled)

Summary of Studies Purpose of Submission: Approval of generic drugs Number of Studies: 13 Study Design: 2-treatment, 2-sequence, 4-period Crossover Sequence Designs: ABAB/BABA and ABBA/BAAB Number of Subjects: Demography: Controlled population (mostly young healthy male subjects) Dosage Forms: IR, MR (solid oral products), Suspension, Suppository Analyte: Parent Drug BE Measures: AUC(0-T), AUC(0-inf), CMAX

Summary of Results Individual Bioequivalence (IBE) Average Bioequivalence (ABE) Pass Fail PassFail 11/13 (AUCT) 12/13 (AUCI) 12/13 (CMAX) 1/13 (CMAX) 2/13 (AUCT) 1/13 (AUCI) BE Measure Within-subj. Std. Dev. Range - Ref. Drug Within-subj. Std. Dev. Test/Ref. Ratio - Range Subj.X Form. - Range Test/Ref G. Mean Ratio. - Range AUC(0-T) % AUC(0-inf) % CMAX % Number of Data Sets Passing/Failing by IBE and ABE Criteria Summary of IBE Parameters NONE

Performance of the IBE Criterion - Some Examples 1. Failing ABE & Passing IBE: Drug #2 - IR (CMAX) - N=55 2. Passing IBE (Drug #1 - IR, N=29) & Failing IBE (Drug #4 - IR, N=59) - AUC(0-T) 3. Passing IBE (Drug #3 - SUP., N=57) & Failing IBE (Drug #6 - ER, N=27) - AUC(0-T)

Subject-by-Formulation Interaction (Drug #4) - AUC(0-T)

Subject-by-Formulation Interaction - CMAX (Drug #2)

Concluding Remarks 1. IBE approach is an aggregate criterion. The combination of all three parameters (differences in means, differences in within-subject variances, and subject*formulation) determines the outcome. 2. Scaling approach is particularly helpful for highly variable drugs with large within-subject variances. 3. Analysis of showed that important subject-by-formulation interactions occurred due to a few subjects. The reliability and the possible cause of such observed interactions need to be carefully investigated. 4. The studies received thus far during the interim period, have utilized controlled populations. The frequency of occurrence of important subject-by-formulation interactions and the utility of this approach will be better evaluated as BE studies using heterogeneous general populations become available to the Agency.