Influence of point estimates and study power of bioequivalence studies on establishing bioequivalence between generics by adjusted indirect comparisons

Analysis of Pharmacokinetic and Pharmacodynamic Parameters in EU- Versus US-Licensed Reference Biological Products: Are In Vivo Bridging Studies Justified for Biosimilar Development?

BACKGROUND

Bridging studies are mandatory in the EU and USA if the reference biological product used in the biosimilar comparability exercise is foreign sourced. However, it has been argued that the duplication of bridging studies may limit biosimilar development.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of the study was to explore whether it is necessary to conduct pharmacokinetic (PK)/pharmacodynamic (PD) bridging studies for biosimilars. This study examines similarities and differences between EU- and US-licensed reference biological products, based on literature-reported PK and/or PD data.

METHODS

We searched PubMed, Drugs@FDA, and European Medicines Agency (EMA) databases to identify biosimilar bridging studies designed to evaluate similarities between EU- and US-licensed reference biological products. PK and/or PD parameters were retrieved; the ratio of the parameter value of the EU-licensed product to that of the US-licensed product and its corresponding 90% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated. Similarity was declared if the 90% CIs for the ratios of the PK or PD parameters were within the range of 80-125%.

RESULTS

Thirty-one bridging studies were identified for 11 biosimilars, including adalimumab (n = 10), bevacizumab (n = 4), epoetin alfa (n = 1), etanercept (n = 2), filgrastim (n = 1), infliximab (n = 3), insulin glargine (n = 1), insulin lispro (n = 1), PEGfilgrastim (n = 2), rituximab (n = 2), and trastuzumab (n = 4). Most studies showed PK and/or PD similarities between the EU- and US-licensed reference biological products. However, among the 31 studies, only three studies (accounting for two biologics, PEGfilgrastim and adalimumab) showed dissimilarity between the EU and US reference products. Although one bridging study on PEGfilgrastim (Sandoz) indicated dissimilar PKs (maximum observed plasma concentration [C_max] and area under the concentration-time curve [AUC]) between the reference products, the other study (Mylan) demonstrated similar PK. Moreover, two of ten studies involving adalimumab failed to demonstrate similarities between the reference products. However, for both cases, PK similarities were later confirmed in the follow-up bridging studies with larger sample sizes.

CONCLUSION

Our analysis reveals that, in most cases, the reference biological products originated from the EU and those from the USA are almost indistinguishable in terms of PK/PD properties. Additional in vivo bridging studies between reference products from different global regions may not be required if similar physicochemical and structural properties are evident in vitro.

Adjusted indirect comparisons to assess bioequivalence between generic clopidogrel products in Serbia

AIMS

Generic products can be regarded as therapeutically equivalent and switchable with the reference product. However, switchability between generics is unknown, as direct comparisons between generics are not performed. The aim of this study was to investigate the bioequivalence between generic clopidogrel products by means of adjusted indirect comparisons (AICs).

METHODS

AICs were conducted to assess bioequivalence between 4 generic clopidogrel products that are authorised in Serbia. Generics are considered equivalent to the reference if the 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the ratios test/reference of the maximum concentration (C_max ) and area under the curve up to the last measurable concentration (AUC_0-t ) fall within the acceptance range 80.00-125.00%. However, for AICs between generics, the Canadian acceptance criterion for C_max was employed, where only the point estimate of C_max needs to be within 80.00-125.00%.

RESULTS

The 90% CIs of the AICs demonstrated bioequivalence within 80.00-125.00% for all AUC_0-t comparisons. The point estimates of C_max in all AICs were also within this range.

CONCLUSION

This study demonstrates that the bioavailability of these 4 generic clopidogrel products authorised in Serbia is very similar. Despite the limited power of AICs, bioequivalence was demonstrated for all 90% CIs of AUC_0-t and all 90% CIs of C_max comparisons were within or very close to the acceptance range, being able to comply with the acceptance criterion employed in Canada for C_max . Therefore, these 4 generic clopidogrel products authorised in Serbia can be considered switchable with each other in clinical practice based on the adjusted indirect comparisons.

Evaluating the Feasibility of Use of a Foreign Reference Product for Generic Drug Applications: A Retrospective Pilot Study

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

The adoption of a domestic reference product in bioequivalence (BE) studies for generic drug applications is required by some countries. The objective of this study is to assess the feasibility of this by investigating whether innovative products from different countries are bioequivalent.

METHODS

Data were collected from all generic drug applications received by the Taiwan regulatory authority 2012-2016. If a submission package contained BE studies, that generic product was compared separately with different reference products, and the resulting data included in this analysis. A method of adjusted indirect comparison was used to evaluate the BE of reference products from different sources. The relationship between in vitro dissolution and in vivo BE was also explored.

RESULTS

The present study included 10 drugs and a total of 11 comparisons. Seven comparisons for maximum concentration (C _max) (63.6%) and all comparisons (100.0%) for area under the curve up to last measurable time point (AUC) complied with the BE criterion. Similar in vitro dissolution profiles were observed in all comparisons. Among the comparisons that failed to demonstrate BE, only one was considered to be possibly related to product difference, with point estimates of indirect comparison for C _max significantly greater than unity (22%). Discordance between in vitro and in vivo observations was probably due to either drugs with highly variable properties or a lack of discriminatory dissolution testing method.

CONCLUSIONS

Although this retrospective analysis only included a few drugs and product formulation types, i.e., immediate release, delayed release, and orally disintegrating tablet, these preliminary results suggest that using a foreign reference product in BE studies for generic drug applications could be a feasible approach, but with some restrictions: comparable dissolution profiles, same innovator company, same size, weight, and type of coating as the domestic reference product, etc. Further investigations for other complex formulations are required.

Interchangeability between first-line generic antiretroviral products prequalified by WHO using adjusted indirect comparisons

BACKGROUND

The scaling-up of access to antiretroviral therapy, particularly in low- to middle-income countries, was facilitated by the introduction and widespread use of generic antiretroviral medicines and fixed-dose combinations. Generic medicines are approved by regulatory authorities based on the demonstration of bioequivalence with the innovator or reference product, as well as meeting quality standards. In clinical practice, however, it is not unusual for generics to be interchanged between each other. This study investigated the differences in bioavailability between WHO-prequalified first-line antiretroviral generics by means of adjusted indirect comparisons to ensure interchangeability between these generics.

METHODS

Data on 34 products containing emtricitabine, tenofovir disoproxil fumarate, lamivudine and efavirenz in single formulations or fixed-dose combinations were included in the analysis. The 90% CI for the adjusted indirect comparisons was calculated using the homoscedastic method that uses the conventional t-test, and assumes homogeneity of variances between the studies and small sample sizes. The combined standard deviation of both bioequivalence studies was calculated from the variability of each individual study.

RESULTS

The adjusted indirect comparisons between generics showed that the differences, expressed as 90% CIs, are less than 30%. Confidence in the interchangeability of two generic products was reduced if the mean difference between the test and reference in the original studies is more than 10%.

CONCLUSIONS

From a bioequivalence perspective, the generic antiretroviral medicines prequalified by WHO are interchangeable with the reference, as well as between each other without safety or efficacy concerns.