Search

This report summarizes the proceedings for Day 3 of the workshop titled "Current State and Future Expectations of Translational Modeling Strategies toSupportDrug Product Development, Manufacturing Changes and Controls". From a drug product quality perspective, patient-centric product development necessitates the development of clinically relevant drug product specifications (CRDPS). In this regard, Physiologically Based Biopharmaceutics modeling (PBBM) is a viable tool to establish links between in-vitro to in-vivo data, and support with establishing CRDPS. The theme of day 3 was practical applications of PBBM to support drug product quality. In this manuscript, case studies from US FDA, EMA and pharmaceutical industry on applications of PBBM in drug product quality are summarized which include 1) regulatory agency's perspectives on establishing the safe space and achieving study waivers, 2) model-informed risk assessment on the effects of acid reducing agents, bridging of dissolution methods, food effect, and formulation selection, and 3) understanding clinical formulation performance. Breakout session discussions focused on four topics - 1) terminologies related to physiologically based modeling in support of drug product quality, 2) regulatory harmonization on evidentiary standards, 3) CRDPS approaches and 4) bridging between biorelevant and quality control (QC) dissolution methods.

This workshop report summarizes the proceedings of Day 1 of a three-day workshop on “Current State and Future Expectations of Translational Modeling Strategies to Support Drug Product Development, Manufacturing Changes and Controls”. Physiologically based biopharmaceutics models (PBBM) are tools which enable the drug product quality attributes to be linked to the in vivo performance. These tools rely on key quality inputs in order to provide reliable predictions. After introducing the objectives of the workshop and the expectations from the breakout sessions, Day 1 of the workshop focused on the best practices and challenges in measuring in vitro inputs needed for modeling, such as the drug solubility, the dissolution rate of the drug product, potential precipitation of the drug and drug permeability. This paper reports the podium presentations and summarizes breakout session discussions related to A) the best strategies for determining solubility, supersaturation and critical supersaturation; B) the best strategies for the development of biopredictive (clinically relevant) dissolution methods; C) the challenges associated with describing gastro-intestinal systems parameters such as mucus, liquid volume and motility; and D) the challenges with translating biopharmaceutical measures of drug permeability along the gastrointestinal tract to a meaningful model parameter.

On May 4, 2020, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) hosted an online public workshop titled "FY 2020 Generic Drug Regulatory Science Initiatives Public Workshop" to provide an overview of the status of the science and research priorities and to solicit input on the development of Generic Drug User Fee Amendments fiscal year 2021 priorities. This report summarizes the podium presentations and the outcome of discussions along with innovative ways to overcome challenges and significant opportunities related to model-based approaches in bioequivalence assessment for breakout session 4 titled, "Data analysis and model-based bioequivalence (BE)." This session focused on the application of model-based approaches in the generic drug development, with a vision of accelerating regulatory decision making for abbreviated new drug application assessments. The session included both podium presentations and panel discussions with three topics of interest: (i) in vitro study evaluation methods and their clinical relevance, (ii) challenges in model-based BE, (iii) emerging expertise and tools in implementing new BE approaches.

The pharmaceutical industry and regulatory agencies rely on dissolution similarity testing to make critical product decisions as part of drug product life cycle management. Accordingly, the application of mathematical approaches to evaluate dissolution profile similarity is described in regulatory guidance with the emphasis given to the similarity factor f

Highly variable disposition after oral ingestion of acyclovir has been reported, although little is known regarding the underlying mechanisms. Different studies using the same reference product (Zovirax ®) showed that Cmax and AUC were respectively 44 and 35% lower in Saudi Arabians than Europeans, consistent with higher frequencies of reduced-activity polymorphs of the organic cation transporter (OCT1) in Europeans. In this study, the contribution of physiology (i.e., OCT1 activity) to the oral disposition of acyclovir immediate release (IR) tablets was hypothesized to be greater than dissolution. The potential role of OCT1 was studied in a validated physiologically-based biopharmaceutics model (PBBM), while dissolution of two Chilean generics (with demonstrated bioequivalence) and the reference product was assessed in vitro. The PBBM suggested that OCT1 activity could partially explain population-related pharmacokinetic differences. Further, dissolution of generics was slower than the regulatory criterion for BCS III IR products. Remarkably, virtual bioequivalence (incorporating in vitro dissolution into the PBBM) correctly and robustly predicted the bioequivalence of these products, showcasing its value in support of failed BCS biowaivers. These findings suggest that very-rapid dissolution for acyclovir IR products may not be critical for BCS biowaiver. They also endorse the relevance of cross-over designs in bioequivalence trials.

For oral drug products, in vitro dissolution is the most used surrogate of in vivo dissolution and absorption. In the context of drug product quality, safe space is defined as the boundaries of in vitro dissolution, and relevant quality attributes, within which drug product variants are expected to be bioequivalent to each other. It would be highly desirable if the safe space could be established via a direct link between available in vitro data and in vivo pharmacokinetics. In response to the challenges with establishing in vitro-in vivo correlations (IVIVC) with traditional modeling approaches, physiologically based biopharmaceutics modeling (PBBM) has been gaining increased attention. In this manuscript we report five case studies on using PBBM to establish a safe space for BCS Class 2 and 4 across different companies, including applications in an industrial setting for both internal decision making or regulatory applications. The case studies provide an opportunity to reflect on practical vs. ideal datasets for safe space development, the methodologies for incorporating dissolution data in the model and the criteria used for model validation and application. PBBM and safe space, still represent an evolving field and more examples are needed to drive development of best practices.

The implementation of clinically relevant drug product specifications (CRDPS) depends on establishing a link between in vitro performance and in vivo exposure. The scientific community, including regulatory agencies, relies on biopharmaceutics tools on the in vitro performance side, while to enable the link to in vivo exposure, physiologically based pharmacokinetic (PBPK) modeling offers much promise. However, when it comes to PBPK applications in support of CRDPS, otherwise called physiologically based biopharmaceutics models (PBBM), the tools are not yet at the desired level. Currently, it is not possible to integrate detailed variations in chemistry, manufacturing and controls (CMC) attributes and parameters into these models in a way that can consistently predict their effect on local and systemic drug exposure. Specifically, to achieve the desired level, there is a need to advance the science and policy of PBBM. This manuscript summarizes the proceedings of a three-day workshop where the following themes were discussed: 1) Challenges in the development and implementation of in vitro biopredictive tools needed for successful mechanistic modeling; 2) Best practices in model development, verification and validation; and 3) Appropriate terminology (e.g., PBBM vs. PBPK models for biopharmaceutics applications) and applications of PBBM in support of drug product quality.

This workshop report summarizes the proceedings of Day 2 of a three-day workshop on “Current State and Future Expectations of Translational Modeling Strategies to Support Drug Product Development, Manufacturing Changes and Controls”. From a drug product quality perspective, physiologically based biopharmaceutics modeling (PBBM) is a tool to link variations in the drug product quality attributes to in vivo outcomes enabling the establishment of clinically relevant drug product specifications (CRDPS). Day 2 of the workshop focused on best practices in developing, verifying and validating PBBM. This manuscript gives an overview of podium presentations and summarizes breakout (BO) session discussions related to (1) challenges and opportunities for using PBBM to assess the clinical impact of formulation and manufacturing changes on the in vivo performance of a drug product, (2) best practices to account for parameter uncertainty and variability during model development, (3) best practices in the development, verification and validation of PBBM and (4) opportunities and knowledge gaps related to leveraging PBBM for virtual bioequivalence simulations.

The pharmaceutical industry and regulatory agencies rely on dissolution similarity testing to make critical product performance decisions as part of drug product life cycle management. Accordingly, the application of mathematical approaches to evaluate dissolution profile similarity is described in regulatory guidance. However, the requirements (e.g., which time points, number of time points, %CV) to apply the widely known similarity factor f2 and other alternative statistical approaches diverge noticeably across regulatory agencies. In an effort to highlight current practices to assess dissolution profile similarity and to strive towards global harmonization, a workshop entitled "in vitro dissolution similarity assessment in support of drug product quality: what, how, when" was held May 21-22, 2019, at the University of Maryland, Baltimore. This article summarizes key points from the podium presentations and breakout (BO) sessions focusing on (1) contrasting the advantages and disadvantages of several statistical methods; (2) the importance of experimental design for successful similarity evaluation; (3) the value of similarity evaluation in light of clinically relevant specifications; and (4) the need for creating a robust and scientifically appropriate path (e.g., non-prescriptive decision tree) for dissolution profile similarity assessment as a stepping stone for global harmonization.

During non-clinical and clinical development of a new molecular entity (NME), modeling and simulation (M&S) are routinely used to predict the exposure and pharmacokinetics (PK) of the drug compound in humans. The basic methodology and output are generally understood across all functional disciplines. However, this understanding is mostly restricted to traditional methods such as those in simplified kinetic models and void of adequate mechanistic foundation to address questions beyond the observed clinical data. In the past two decades, alternative and more mechanistic methods, particularly for describing absorption, distribution, excretion and metabolism (ADME) of drugs have been developed and applied under the general umbrella of physiologically-based pharmacokinetic (PBPK) methods. Their mechanistic nature gives the ability to ask many other questions which were not traditionally asked and provide some logically and evidenced-based potential answers. Whilst traditional PK methods are mainstream and understood by most scientists, mechanistic absorption models alongside other PBPK approaches are still deemed eclectic, despite making significant strides in the fundamental science as well as regulatory acceptance. On November 3rd, a short course was held at the annual American Association of Pharmaceutical Scientists (AAPS) meeting in San Antonio, Texas. The different talks were tailored to provide a basis or rationale for the subject, introduction to fundamental principles with historical perspective, a critique of the state-of-the-art, examples of successful application of the methods across different phases of the drug development process and the specific standards these mechanistic models should meet to be fully reliable from a regulatory perspective.

Stochastic deconvolution is a parameter estimation method that calculates drug absorption using a nonlinear mixed-effects model in which the random effects associated with absorption represent a Wiener process. The present work compares (1) stochastic deconvolution and (2) numerical deconvolution, using clinical pharmacokinetic (PK) data generated for an in vitro – in vivo correlation (IVIVC) study of extended release (ER) formulations of a Biopharmaceutics Classification System class III drug substance. The preliminary analysis found that numerical and stochastic deconvolution yielded superimposable fraction absorbed ( F abs ) versus time profiles when supplied with exactly the same externally determined unit impulse response parameters. In a separate analysis, a full population-PK/stochastic deconvolution was applied to the clinical PK data. Scenarios were considered in which immediate release (IR) data were either retained or excluded to inform parameter estimation. The resulting F abs profiles were then used to model level A IVIVCs. All the considered stochastic deconvolution scenarios, and numerical deconvolution, yielded on average similar results with respect to the IVIVC validation. These results could be achieved with stochastic deconvolution without recourse to IR data. Unlike numerical deconvolution, this also implies that in crossover studies where certain individuals do not receive an IR treatment, their ER data alone can still be included as part of the IVIVC analysis.

This publication summarizes the proceedings of day 2 of a 3-day workshop on "Dissolution and Translational Modeling Strategies Enabling Patient-Centric Product Development." Patient-centric drug product development from a drug product quality perspective necessitates the establishment of clinically relevant drug product specifications via an in vitro-in vivo link. Modeling and simulation offer a path to establish this link; in this regard, physiologically based modeling has been implemented successfully to support regulatory decision-making and drug product labeling. In this manuscript, case studies of physiologically based biopharmaceutics modeling (PBBM) applied to drug product quality are presented and summarized. These case studies exemplify a possible path to achieve an in vitro-in vivo link and encompass (a) development of biopredictive dissolution methods to support biowaivers, (b) model-informed formulation selection, (c) predicting clinical formulation performance, and (d) defining a safe space for regulatory flexibility via virtual bioequivalence (BE). Workflows for the development and verification of absorption models/PBBM and for the establishment of a safe space using dissolution as an input are described with examples. Breakout session discussions on topics, such as current challenges and some best practices in model development and verification, are included as part of the Supplementary material.

In the past two decades, in vitro in vivo correlation (IVIVC) has been considered an important tool for supporting biowaivers, setting dissolution acceptance criteria, and more recently in the Quality by Design (QbD) framework promoting the establishment of clinically meaningful drug product specifications using dissolution as the endpoint. Based on our review experience at the FDA, for the purposes of this article, we analyzed the current state of regulatory submissions containing IVIVC approaches and discussed the successes and failures from the perspectives of study design to methodology. In the past decade, the overall acceptance rate of the IVIVC submissions is about 40%. Moreover, the number of IVIVC studies seen in the submissions per year is not increasing. Establishing clinically meaningful drug product specifications through the linkages between the identified critical quality attributes and in vivo performance is key for developing a quality drug product. To achieve this goal, there is an imminent need for addressing the issues behind a low success rate in IVIVC development. The results from the current analysis revealed that special considerations should be taken in areas such as (1) selection of appropriate number/kind of formulations for IVIVC development/validation, (2) construction of exploratory plots to guide model building and selection, (3) investigation of the reasons of inconclusive predictability, (4) improvement on the quality and richness of the data, and (5) avoidance of over parameterization. The development and incorporation of biopredictive dissolution methods and the use of non-conventional approaches, including mechanistic/physiologically based approaches, should be explored to increase the likelihood of IVIVC success.

This publication summarizes the proceedings and key outcomes of the first day (“Day 1”) of the 3-day workshop on “Dissolution and Translational Modeling Strategies Enabling Patient-Centric Product Development.” The overall aims of the workshop were to foster a productive dialog between industry and regulatory agencies and to discuss current strategies toward the development and implementation of clinically relevant dissolution specifications as an integral part of enhanced drug product understanding and effective drug product life-cycle management. The Day 1 podium presentations covered existing challenges and concerns for implementing highly valuable, yet often unique and novel experimental dissolution setups as quality control tools. In addition, several podium presentations highlighted opportunities to replace conventional dissolution testing with surrogate test methods to enable robust drug product and process understanding within the context of quality by design (QbD), new manufacturing technologies, and real-time release testing (RTRT). The topics covered on Day 1 laid the foundation for subsequent discussions which focused on the challenges related to establishing an in vitro–in vivo link and approaches for establishing clinically relevant drug product specifications which are becoming an expectation in regulatory submissions. Clarification of dissolution-related terminology used inconsistently among the scientific community, and the purpose of various testing approaches were key discussion topics of the Day 1 breakout sessions. The outcome of these discussions along with creative ways to overcome challenges related to bridging “exploratory dissolution approaches” with methods suitable for end-product control testing are captured within this report.

This publication summarizes the proceedings of day 3 of a 3-day workshop on "Dissolution and Translational Modeling Strategies Enabling Patient-Centric Product Development." Specifically, this publication discusses the current approaches in building clinical relevance into drug product development for solid oral dosage forms, along with challenges that both industry and regulatory agencies are facing in setting clinically relevant drug product specifications (CRDPS) as presented at the workshop. The concept of clinical relevance is a multidisciplinary effort which implies an understanding of the relationship between the critical quality attributes (CQAs) and their impact on predetermined clinical outcomes. Developing this level of understanding, in many cases, requires introducing deliberate but meaningful variations into the critical material attributes (CMAs) and critical process parameters (CPPs) to establish a relationship between the resulting in vitro dissolution/release profiles and in vivo PK performance, a surrogate for clinical outcomes. Alternatively, with the intention of improving the efficiency of the drug product development process by limiting the burden of conducting in vivo studies, this understanding can be either built, or at least enhanced, through in silico efforts, such as IVIVC and physiologically based pharmacokinetic (PBPK) absorption modeling and simulation (M&S). These approaches enable dissolution testing to establish safe boundaries and reject drug product batches falling outside of the established safe range (e.g., due to inadequate in vivo performance) enabling the method to become clinically relevant. Ultimately, these efforts contribute towards patient-centric drug product development and allow regulatory flexibility throughout the lifecycle of the drug product.

On May 15th–17th, 2017, the US FDA and the International Consortium for Innovation and Quality in Pharmaceutical Development (IQ) held a workshop at the University of Maryland’s Center of Excellence in Regulatory Science and Innovation (M-CERSI), to discuss the role of dissolution testing and translational modeling and simulation in enabling patient-centric solid oral drug product development. This 3-day event was attended by scientists from regulatory agencies, pharmaceutical companies, and academia. The workshop included podium presentations followed by breakout session discussions. The first day of the meeting focused on the challenges in dissolution method development and the role of dissolution testing throughout drug product development. On the second day, approaches to establish a link between in vitro testing and in vivo drug product performance (e.g., systemic exposure) were presented. Overall success rates and challenges in establishing IVIVCs via traditional and modern physiologically based pharmacokinetic (PBPK) modeling and simulation approaches were discussed. Day 3 provided an opportunity to discuss the expectations for establishing clinically relevant drug product specifications (CRDPS). It was recognized that understanding the impact of formulation and process variations on dissolution and in vivo performance is critical for most drug products formulated with poorly soluble drugs to ensure consistent product performance. The breakout sessions served as platforms for discussing controversial topics such as the clarification of dissolution terminology, PBPK model development and validation expectations, and approaches to set CRDPS. The meeting concluded with a commitment to continue the dialog between regulators, industry, and academia to advance overall product quality understanding.

This article summarizes the proceeding of the September 2012 Workshop on Application of In vitro–In vivo correlation (IVIVC) in Formulation Development. The workshop brought together international experts with the goal of establishing common concepts that could be utilized to facilitate the development and validation of IVIVCs in the registration of and post-approval changes to oral solid dosage forms. The workshop was organized by the Product Quality Research Institute (PQRI) and cosponsored by AAPS, FDA, FIP, and USP. Open access of this information is available to all interested parties. INTRODUCTION IVIVC is an important concept and a tool in the development and evaluation of pharmaceutical dosage forms. A properly conducted IVIVC provides assurance of the robustness of a dosage form and provides justification of manufacturing changes during drug product development. A filed IVIVC can accelerate internal decision making of proposed SUPAC changes by providing linkage back to preapproval formulations. As such, a well-conducted IVIVC may have substantial value to pharmaceutical manufacturers, regulatory bodies, and ultimately, consumers of the product. Early history (1982–1992) suggests that few IVIVCs were filed. Since the advent of the FDA guidance (1) approximately fifteen years ago, the number of NDAs containing IVIVC studies has increased, and it is anticipated that exploration of IVIVCs and IVIVRs will continue to grow. FDA scientists confirmed that most IVIVCs filed are for modified-release (MR) products with fewer for immediaterelease (IR) dosage forms. Many of the latter were identified as insufficient and not approvable. Early statistics immediately following the issuance of the FDA Guidance *Corresponding author. e-mail: vanbuskirk@drugdevconsult.com dx.doi.org/10.14227/DT210214P51

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.

In April 2010 a workshop on the “Role of Pharmacokinetics in Establishing Bioequivalence for Orally Inhaled Drug Products” was sponsored by the Product Quality Research Institute (PQRI) in coordination with Respiratory Drug Delivery (RDD) 2010. The objective of the workshop was to evaluate the current state of knowledge and identify gaps in information relating to the potential use of pharmacokinetics (PK) as the key indicator of in vivo bioequivalence (BE) of locally acting orally inhaled products (OIPs). In addition, the strengths and limitations of the PK approach to detect differences in product performance compared with in vitro and pharmacodynamic (PD)/clinical/therapeutic equivalence (TE) studies were discussed. The workshop discussed the relationship between PK and lung deposition, in vitro assessment, and PD studies and examined potential PK study designs that could serve as pivotal BE studies. It has been recognized that the sensitivity to detect differences in product performance gener...

This March 2009 Workshop Summary Report was sponsored by Product Quality Research Institute (PQRI) based on a proposal by the Inhalation and Nasal Technology Focus Group (INTFG) of the American Association of Pharmaceutical Scientists (AAPS). Participants from the pharmaceutical industry, academia and regulatory bodies from the United States, Europe, India, and Brazil attended the workshop with the objective of presenting, reviewing, and discussing recommendations for demonstrating bioequivalence (BE) that may be considered in the development of orally inhaled drug products and regulatory guidances for new drug applications (NDAs), abbreviated NDAs (ANDAs), and postapproval changes. The workshop addressed areas related to in vitro approaches to demonstrating BE, biomarker strategies, imaging techniques, in vivo approaches to establishing local delivery equivalence and device design similarity. The workshop presented material that provided a baseline for the current understanding of orally inhaled drug products (OIPs) and identified gaps in knowledge and consensus that, if answered, might allow the design of a robust, streamlined method for the BE assessment of locally acting inhalation drugs. These included the following: (1) cascade impactor (CI) studies are not a good 2 predictor of the pulmonary dose; more detailed studies on in vitro/in vivo correlations (e.g., suitability of CI studies for assessing differences in the regional deposition) are needed; (2) there is a lack of consensus on the appropriate statistical methods for assessing in vitro results; (3) fully validated and standardized imaging methods, while capable of providing information on pulmonary dose and regional deposition, might not be applicable to the BE of inhaled products mainly due to the problems of having access to radiolabeled innovator product; (4) if alternatives to current methods for establishing local delivery BE of OIPs cannot be established, biomarkers (pharmacodynamic or clinical endpoints) with a sufficiently steep dose-response need to be identified and validated for all relevant drug classes; and (5) the utility of pharmacokinetic studies for evaluating "local pulmonary delivery" equivalence deserves more attention. A summary of action items for seminars and working groups to address these topics in the future is also presented.

The Nanotechnology Risk Assessment Working Group in the Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER) within the United States Food and Drug Administration was established to assess the possible impact of nanotechnology on drug products. The group is in the process of performing risk assessment and management exercises. The task of the working group is to identify areas where CDER may need to optimize its review practices and to develop standards to ensure review consistency for drug applications that may involve the application of nanotechnology. The working group already performed risk management exercises evaluating the potential risks from administering nanomaterial active pharmaceutical ingredients (API) or nanomaterial excipients by various routes of administration. This publication outlines the risk assessment and management process used by the working group, using nanomaterial API by the oral route of administration as an example.