Pharmacodynamics as a tool to assess the bioequivalence of non-systemically available drugs: size of the sample required

Physiologically Based Biopharmaceutics Model (PBBM) of Minimally Absorbed Locally Acting Drugs in the Gastrointestinal Tract-Case Study: Tenapanor

A physiologically based biopharmaceutics model (PBBM) was developed to predict stool and urine sodium content in response to tenapanor administration in healthy subjects. Tenapanor is a minimally absorbed small molecule that inhibits the sodium/hydrogen isoform 3 exchanger (NHE3). It is used to treat irritable bowel syndrome with constipation (IBS-C). Its mode of action in the gastrointestinal tract reduces the uptake of sodium, resulting in an increase in water secretion in the intestinal lumen and accelerating intestinal transit time. The strategy employed was to perform drug-drug interaction (DDI) modelling between sodium and tenapanor, with sodium as the "victim" administered as part of daily food intake and tenapanor as the "perpetrator" altering sodium absorption. Food effect was modelled, including meal-induced NHE3 activity using sodium as an inducer by normalising the induction kinetics of butyrate to sodium equivalents. The presented model successfully predicted both urine and stool sodium content in response to tenapanor dosed in healthy subjects (within 1.25-fold error) and provided insight into the clinical observations of tenapanor dosing time relative to meal ingestion. The PBBM model was applied retrospectively to assess the impact of different forms of tenapanor (free base vs. HCl salt) on its pharmacodynamic (PD) effect. The developed modelling strategy can be effectively adopted to increase confidence in using PBBM models for the prediction of the in vivo behaviour of minimally absorbed, locally acting drugs in the gastrointestinal tract, when other approaches (e.g., biomarkers or PD data) are not available.

Method for evaluating the human bioequivalence of acarbose based on pharmacodynamic parameters

Objective

To explore a method for evaluating the bioequivalence of acarbose based on pharmacodynamic parameters using a single-dose, randomized-sequence, three-way crossover study of acarbose test (T) and reference (R) formulations.

Methods

Baseline-adjusted, pre-dose value deduction, and direct comparison methods were used to evaluate the geometric T/R ratios and 90% confidence intervals (CIs) of the ln-transformed pharmacodynamic parameters to identify the most suitable evaluation system. Twelve participants were randomly divided into three groups to receive treatment in the following sequences: TRR, RTR, and RRT, each including a 7-day washout period between treatment periods. The serum glucose concentration (baseline) was determined. Pharmacodynamic parameters, including the maximum reduction in serum glucose concentrations (ΔC_SG,max) and difference of the AUC of glucose between before and after acarbose exposure (ΔAUEC), were tested.

Results

Using the direct comparison method, the geometric mean ratios of C_SG,max, AUEC_(0-2h), and AUEC_(0-4h) were 94.13%, 97.82% and 99.76%, respectively. The 90% CIs of the geometric T/R ratios for C_SG,max, AUEC_(0-2h), and AUEC_(0-4h) all fell between 80% and 125%. Conversely, ΔC_SG,max and ΔAUEC_(0-4h) were less reliable measures of acarbose bioequivalence.

Conclusions

Pre-dose value deduction and direct comparison methods can be initially considered suitable for assessing acarbose bioequivalence.

Understanding the scientific issues embedded in the generic drug approval process

OBJECTIVE

To review the major scientific issues embedded in the generic drug approval process.

DATA SOURCES

Articles indexed initially under terms such as generic medications, generic drugs, bioequivalence, and bioinequivalence. These terms were used to search indexing services such as MEDLINE, International Pharmaceutical Abstracts, CINAHL (a database of nursing and allied health literature), and Science Citation Index. Additional data sources included the Code of Federal Regulations and regulatory guidances from the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Center for Drug Evaluation and Research.

STUDY SELECTION

Performed by the authors.

DATA EXTRACTION

Not applicable.

DATA SYNTHESIS

Despite the fact that regulations regarding bioequivalence have been in place for more than 20 years, controversies over bioequivalence continue to arise. Consensus on many of these issues is driving the development of new FDA guidances regarding bioequivalence. Still, despite the issuance of new guidance and consensus building among scientists, many clinicians and consumers remain uninformed regarding the scientific basis for establishing bioequivalence and the generic drug approval process in general. Although some have suggested that the generic drug approval process is flawed, overall, it appears that the process works.

CONCLUSION

Understanding the generic drug approval process and the issues surrounding bioequivalence is of paramount importance to both clinicians and scientists.

Bioequivalence requirements for generic products

Many countries have established procedures for the introduction of generic pharmaceutical products. In order to protect consumers, these generic products must be demonstrated to be therapeutically equivalent to a previously approved product, typically an innovator product. The therapeutic equivalence of a generic and an innovator product is most commonly based on the demonstration of bioequivalence, i.e. clinically insignificant differences in the rate and extent of drug absorption usually assessed from pharmacokinetic measurements. This article reviews the bioequivalence requirements for generic products and, in the interest of promoting international harmonisation, highlights those areas where differences exist among countries.

Comparative bioavailability of two oral formulations of ketorolac tromethamine: Dolac and Exodol

The bioavailability of ketorolac after administration of two oral formulations containing 10 mg of ketorolac tromethamine, Exodol and Dolac, to 12 healthy Mexican volunteers was compared. Subjects received both formulations according to a randomized crossover design and blood samples were drawn at selected times during 24 h. Ketorolac plasma concentrations were determined by HPLC and individual plasma-concentration-against-time curves were constructed. Maximal plasma concentration and AUC0-24 values were compared by analysis of variance followed by Westlake's confidence interval test. 90% confidence limits ranged from 80 to 125% for Cmax and from 85 to 118% for AUC0-24. It is concluded that the two assayed formulations are bioequivalent.