Comparison of Dissolution Similarity Assessment Methods for Products with Large Variations: f2 Statistics and Model-Independent Multivariate Confidence Region Procedure for Dissolution Profiles of Multiple Oral Products

The current Japanese Ministry of Health Labour and Welfare (MHLW)'s Guideline for Bioequivalence Studies of Generic Products uses averaged dissolution rates for the assessment of dissolution similarity between test and reference formulations. This study clarifies how the application of model-independent multivariate confidence region procedure (Method B), described in the European Medical Agency and U.S. Food and Drug Administration guidelines, affects similarity outcomes obtained empirically from dissolution profiles with large variations in individual dissolution rates. Sixty-one datasets of dissolution profiles for immediate release, oral generic, and corresponding innovator products that showed large variation in individual dissolution rates in generic products were assessed on their similarity by using the f₂ statistics defined in the MHLW guidelines (MHLW f₂ method) and two different Method B procedures, including a bootstrap method applied with f₂ statistics (BS method) and a multivariate analysis method using the Mahalanobis distance (MV method). The MHLW f₂ and BS methods provided similar dissolution similarities between reference and generic products. Although a small difference in the similarity assessment may be due to the decrease in the lower confidence interval for expected f₂ values derived from the large variation in individual dissolution rates, the MV method provided results different from those obtained through MHLW f₂ and BS methods. Analysis of actual dissolution data for products with large individual variations would provide valuable information towards an enhanced understanding of these methods and their possible incorporation in the MHLW guidelines.

Equivalence of complex drug products: advances in and challenges for current regulatory frameworks

Biotechnology and nanotechnology provide a growing number of innovator-driven complex drug products and their copy versions. Biologics exemplify one category of complex drugs, but there are also nonbiological complex drug products, including many nanomedicines, such as iron-carbohydrate complexes, drug-carrying liposomes or emulsions, and glatiramoids. In this white paper, which stems from a 1-day conference at the New York Academy of Sciences, we discuss regulatory frameworks in use worldwide (e.g., the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, the European Medicines Agency, the World Health Organization) to approve these complex drug products and their follow-on versions. One of the key questions remains how to assess equivalence of these complex products. We identify a number of points for which consensus was found among the stakeholders who were present: scientists from innovator and generic/follow-on companies, academia, and regulatory bodies from different parts of the world. A number of topics requiring follow-up were identified: (1) assessment of critical attributes to establish equivalence for follow-on versions, (2) the need to publish scientific findings in the public domain to further progress in the field, (3) the necessity to develop worldwide consensus regarding nomenclature and labeling of these complex products, and (4) regulatory actions when substandard complex drug products are identified.

Towards an understanding of the propensity for crystalline hydrate formation by molecular compounds

Hydrates are technologically important and ubiquitous yet they remain a poorly understood and understudied class of molecular crystals. In this work, we attempt to rationalize propensity towards hydrate formation through crystallization studies of molecules that lack strong hydrogen-bond donor groups. A Cambridge Structural Database (CSD) survey indicates that the statistical occurrence of hydrates in 124 molecules that contain five- and six-membered N-heterocyclic aromatic moieties is 18.5%. However, hydrate screening experiments on a library of 11 N-heterocyclic aromatic compounds with at least two acceptor moieties and no competing hydrogen-bond donors or acceptors reveals that over 70% of this group form hydrates, suggesting that extrapolation from CSD statistics might, at least in some cases, be deceiving. Slurrying in water and exposure to humidity were found to be the most effective discovery methods. Electrostatic potential maps and/or analysis of the crystal packing in anhydrate structures was used to rationalize why certain molecules did not readily form hydrates.