Search

The objective of this study was to evaluate physicochemical equivalence between brand (i.e., Ferrlecit) and generic sodium ferric gluconate (SFG) in sucrose injection by conducting a series of comparative in vitro characterizations using advanced analytical techniques. The elemental iron and carbon content, thermal properties, viscosity, particle size, zeta potential, sedimentation coefficient, and molecular weight were determined. There was no noticeable difference between brand and generic SFG in sucrose injection for the above physical parameters evaluated, except for the sedimentation coefficient determined by sedimentation velocity analytical ultracentrifugation (SV-AUC) and molecular weight by asymmetric field flow fractionation-multi-angle light scattering (AFFF-MALS). In addition, brand and generic SFG complex products showed comparable molecular weight distributions when determined by gel permeation chromatography (GPC). The observed minor differences between brand and generic SFG, such as sedimentation coefficient, do not impact their biological activities in separate studies of in vitro cellular uptake and rat biodistribution. Coupled with the ongoing clinical study comparing the labile iron level in healthy volunteers, the FDA-funded post-market studies intended to illustrate comprehensive surveillance efforts ensuring safety and efficacy profiles of generic SFG complex in sucrose injection, and also to shed new light on the approval standards on generic parenteral iron colloidal products.

Relative biodistribution of FDA-approved innovator and generic sodium ferric gluconate (SFG) drug products was investigated to identify differences in tissue distribution of iron after intravenous dosing to rats. Three equal cohorts of 42 male Sprague-Dawley rats were created with each cohort receiving one of three treatments: (1) the innovator SFG product dosed intravenously at a concentration of 40 mg/kg; (2) the generic SFG product dosed intravenously at a concentration of 40 mg/kg; (3) saline dosed intravenously at equivalent volume to SFG products. Sampling time points were 15 min, 1 h, 8 h, 1 week, two weeks, four weeks, and six weeks post-treatment. Six rats from each group were sacrificed at each time point. Serum, femoral bone marrow, lungs, brain, heart, kidneys, liver, and spleen were harvested and evaluated for total iron concentration by ICP-MS. The ICP-MS analytical method was validated with linearity, range, accuracy, and precision. Results were determined for mean iron concentrations (µg/g) and mean total iron (whole tissue) content (µg/tissue) for each tissue of all groups at each time point. A percent of total distribution to each tissue was calculated for both products. At any given time point, the overall percent iron concentration distribution did not vary between the two SFG drugs by more than 7% in any tissue. Overall, this study demonstrated similar tissue biodistribution for the two SFG products in the examined tissues.

Iron deficiency anemia is a common clinical consequence for people who suffer from chronic kidney disease, especially those requiring dialysis. Intravenous (IV) iron therapy is a widely accepted safe and efficacious treatment for iron deficiency anemia. Numerous IV iron drugs have been approved by U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), including a single generic product, sodium ferric gluconate complex in sucrose. In this study, we compared the cellular iron uptake profiles of the brand (Ferrlecit®) and generic sodium ferric gluconate (SFG) products. We used a colorimetric assay to examine the amount of iron uptake by three human macrophage cell lines. This is the first published study to provide a parallel evaluation of the cellular uptake of a brand and a generic IV iron drug in a mononuclear phagocyte system. The results showed no difference in iron uptake across all cell lines, tested doses, and time points. The matching iron uptake profiles of Ferrlecit® and its generic product support the FDA’s present position detailed in the draft guidance on development of SFG complex products that bioequivalence can be based on qualitative (Q1) and quantitative (Q2) formulation sameness, similar physiochemical characterization, and pharmacokinetic bioequivalence studies.