1 / 11

Results from Replicate Design Studies in ANDAs

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

leon
Download Presentation

Results from Replicate Design Studies in ANDAs

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. 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.

  2. ABE & IBE Criteria and Parameters ABE Lower BE Limit <Test Mean - Ref. Mean< Upper BE Limit IBE (Test Mean - Ref. Mean)2 + (Subj*Form)2 + (Test within-subj. SD2 - Ref. within-subj. SD2) < Upper BE Limit *(Ref. within-subj. SD)2or (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)

  3. 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: 16 - 59 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

  4. Summary of Results Number of Data Sets Passing/Failing by IBE and ABE Criteria Individual Bioequivalence (IBE) Pass Fail 11/13 (AUCT) 12/13 (AUCI) 12/13 (CMAX) 2/13 (AUCT) 1/13 (AUCI) Pass Average Bioequivalence (ABE) Fail 1/13 (CMAX) NONE Summary of IBE Parameters Test/Ref G. Mean Ratio. - Range Within-subj. Std. Dev. Range - Ref. Drug Within-subj. Std. Dev. Test/Ref. Ratio - Range Subj.X Form. - Range BE Measure AUC(0-T) 89.3 - 103.6% 0.06 - 0.39 0.88 - 1.56 0 - 0.2 AUC(0-inf) 89.3 - 103.9% 0.08 - 0.38 0.77 - 1.54 0 - 0.12 CMAX 88.5 - 115.1% 0.11 - 0.45 0.69 - 1.34 0 - 0.2

  5. 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)

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

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

  8. 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.

More Related