Pharmacokinetic, pharmacodynamic, efficacy, and safety data from two randomized, double-blind studies in patients with asthma and an in vitro study comparing two dry-powder inhalers delivering a combination of salmeterol 50 microg and fluticasone propionate 250 microg: implications for establishing bioequivalence of inhaled products

Pharmacokinetic Bioequivalence between Generic and Originator Orally Inhaled Drug Products: Validity of Administration of Doses above the Approved Single Maximum Dose

Pharmacokinetic bioequivalence of orally inhaled drug products is a critical component of the US FDA's "weight of evidence" approach, and it can serve as the sole indicator of safety and effectiveness of follow-on inhalation products approved in Europe and some other geographic areas. The approved labels of the orally inhaled drug products recommend the maximum number of actuations that can be administered in a single dose on one occasion. This single maximum dose may consist of one or more inhalations depending upon the product. Bioequivalence studies for the inhalation drug product registrations in the US and EU have employed single and multiple actuation doses, in some cases over and above the approved single maximum labeled doses, thus, inconsistent with the approved labeling of the reference products. Pharmacokinetics of inhaled drug products after single and multiple doses may be different, with implications for bioequivalence determined at single and multiple doses. Scientific literature indicates that the relative bioavailability of the Test and Reference products may differ between administrations of doses in one and multiple inhalations. Multiple doses not only alter the pharmacokinetics but also may reduce the sensitivity of the bioassay to actual differences between the Test and Reference product performances. Ability of the pharmacokinetic bioassay to accurately determine the extent of difference between two products may also be substantially reduced at high doses. Therefore, in our opinion, pharmacokinetic bioequivalence to support regulatory approvals of inhalation products at doses above the recommended single maximum dose should be avoided. Furthermore, the bioequivalence of products (if any) established at doses exceeding the approved single maximum doses should be revisited to determine if the products maintain bioequivalence when evaluated at the clinically relevant single maximum doses.

Bioequivalence of Two Tiotropium Dry Powder Inhalers and the Utility of Realistic Impactor Testing

Introduction: Inhaled antimuscarinics are a cornerstone of the management of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. This article details a series of five pharmacokinetic (PK) studies comparing a generic tiotropium dry powder inhaler (DPI) to Spiriva HandiHaler, the realistic in vitro methods used to support those studies, and the related in vitro-in vivo correlations (IVIVCs). Methods: All five PK studies were of open-label, single-dose, crossover design with test and reference treatments administered to healthy subjects. Following unexpected results in the first three PK studies, a realistic impactor method was developed comprising an Oropharyngeal Consortium (OPC) mouth-throat and simulated inspiratory profiles in conjunction with a Next Generation Impactor (NGI). Mass fractions and the in vitro whole lung dose were estimated for the test product and Spiriva® HandiHaler® using this method, and IVIVCs derived. Results: Bioequivalence could not be demonstrated for Cmax in the first three PK studies (test/reference ratios ranging from 83.1% to 131.8%), although was observed for AUCt. Reanalysis of the corresponding biobatches with the realistic NGI method revealed in vitro ratios aligned with these PK data (in contrast to the compendial NGI data) and thus inadvertent selection of "mismatched" biobatches. Two further PK studies were undertaken, supported by the realistic NGI method. With the comparison of test and reference products similarly positioned within their respective product performance distributions, bioequivalence was confirmed in both studies. IVIVCs based on mass fractions as per the realistic NGI method were robust and highly predictive of PK outcomes. Conclusions: The test tiotropium DPI and Spiriva HandiHaler were bioequivalent when equitable biobatch comparisons, based on realistic NGI testing, were performed. The observations from this program support the utility of realistic test methods for inhaled product development.

Managing moderate-to-severe paediatric asthma: a scoping review of the efficacy and safety of fluticasone propionate/salmeterol

BACKGROUND

Fluticasone propionate/salmeterol xinafoate (FP/SAL) is an inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) and long-acting β2-agonist (LABA) combination, indicated for the regular treatment of children (aged >4 years) with asthma that is inadequately controlled with ICS monotherapy plus as-needed short-acting β2-agonists, or already adequately controlled with ICS/LABA.

OBJECTIVE

Compared with the adult population, fewer clinical studies have investigated the efficacy of FP/SAL in paediatric patients with moderate and moderate-to-severe asthma. In this review, we synthesise the available evidence for the efficacy and safety of FP/SAL in the paediatric population, compared with other available therapies indicated for asthma in children.

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA

A literature review identified randomised controlled trials and observational studies of FP/SAL in the paediatric population with moderate-to-severe asthma.

SOURCES OF EVIDENCE

The Medline database was searched using PubMed (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/), with no publication date restrictions. Search strategies were developed and refined by authors.

CHARTING METHODS

Selected articles were screened for clinical outcome data (exacerbation reduction, nocturnal awakenings, lung function, symptom control, rescue medication use and safety) and a table of key parameters developed.

RESULTS

Improvements in asthma outcomes with FP/SAL include reduced risk of asthma-related emergency department visits and hospitalisations, protection against exercise-induced asthma and improvements in measures of lung function. Compared with FP monotherapy, greater improvements in measures of lung function and asthma control are reported. In addition, reduced incidence of exacerbations, hospitalisations and rescue medication use is observed with FP/SAL compared with ICS and leukotriene receptor antagonist therapy. Furthermore, FP/SAL therapy can reduce exposure to both inhaled and oral corticosteroids.

CONCLUSIONS

FP/SAL is a reliable treatment option in patients not achieving control with ICS monotherapy or a different ICS/LABA combination. Evidence shows that FP/SAL is well tolerated and has a similar safety profile to FP monotherapy. Thus, FP/SAL provides an effective option for the management of moderate-to-severe asthma in the paediatric population.

Generic dry powder inhalers bioequivalence: Batch-to-batch variability insights

Active pharmaceutical ingredient(s) [API(s)] of dry powder inhalers (DPIs) deposition and their fate in the respiratory system are influenced by a complex matrix of formulation, device, manufacturing and physiological variations. DPIs on the market have shown bioinequivalence between batches of the same product. Despite being clinically insignificant, they affect bioequivalence studies when a generic product is compared with the originator. This review discusses implications of batch-to-batch variability on bioequivalence study outcomes and shortcomings of current regulatory requirements. Possible formulation and manufacturing factors resulting in batch-to-batch variability highlight the inherent nature of this issue. Despite scholarly investigations and official regulatory guidance, there remains a need for reliable and realistic in vitro tests that accurately guide a representative reference product batch selection.

In vitro-in vivo correlation of cascade impactor data for orally inhaled pharmaceutical aerosols

In vitro-in vivo correlation is the establishment of a predictive relationship between in vitro and in vivo data. In the context of cascade impactor results of orally inhaled pharmaceutical aerosols, this involves the linking of parameters such as the emitted dose, fine particle dose, fine particle fraction, and mass median aerodynamic diameter to in vivo lung deposition from scintigraphy data. If the dissolution and absorption processes after deposition are adequately understood, the correlation may be extended to the pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of the delivered drugs. Correlation of impactor data to lung deposition is a relatively new research area that has been gaining recent interest. Although few in number, experiments and meta-analyses have been conducted to examine such correlations. An artificial neural network approach has also been employed to analyse the complex relationships between multiple factors and responses. However, much research is needed to generate more data to obtain robust correlations. These predictive models will be useful in improving the efficiency in product development by reducing the need of expensive and lengthy clinical trials.

Equivalent Systemic Exposure to Fluticasone Propionate/Salmeterol Following Single Inhaled Doses from Advair Diskus and Wixela Inhub: Results of Three Pharmacokinetic Bioequivalence Studies

Background: Wixela® Inhub® was developed to deliver inhaled fluticasone propionate/salmeterol (FP/S) combination as a substitutable generic equivalent to Advair® Diskus®. These studies aimed to confirm the pharmacokinetic bioequivalence (BE) of FP/S after single doses of Wixela Inhub (test [T]) and Advair Diskus (reference [R]). Methods: Three open-label, randomized, two-way crossover, single-dose studies in healthy subjects (N = 66 each) compared the systemic exposure of FP and salmeterol after inhalation from three dose strengths of FP/S (100/50, 250/50, or 500/50 μg) delivered from T and R. Primary BE endpoints were the area under the plasma concentration-time curve from time = 0 to the last measurable concentration (AUC(0-t)) and the maximum observed plasma concentration (Cmax) for both FP and S. The BE acceptance criteria specified that the 90% confidence intervals (CIs) of the geometric mean T/R ratios for AUC(0-t) and Cmax can be contained within 0.80-1.25 for both FP and salmeterol. Results: Wixela Inhub met the acceptance criteria for BE for FP and salmeterol at each dose strength. Estimated AUC(0-t) and Cmax geometric mean ratios (T/R [90% CI]) for FP were, respectively, 1.04 (1.00-1.08) and 0.92 (0.87-0.96) for 100/50 μg FP/S, 1.07 (1.02-1.13) and 1.01 (0.95-1.07) for 250/50 μg, and 0.97 (0.92, 1.00) and 0.90 (0.86-0.93) for 500/50 μg. Estimated AUC(0-t) and Cmax ratios for salmeterol were, respectively, 1.08 (1.04-1.11) and 1.00 (0.94-1.04) for 100/50 μg FP/S, 1.03 (0.99-1.07) and 0.93 (0.87-1.00) for 250/50 μg, and 1.00 (0.96-1.04) and 0.86 (0.81-0.91) for 500/50 μg. FP/S at all doses via both T and R was comparably well tolerated. Conclusions: Wixela Inhub was bioequivalent to Advair Diskus at all three dose strengths for both FP and S, providing direct evidence of equivalent systemic safety and indirect evidence for equivalent pulmonary deposition.

Pharmacokinetic profile analyses for inhaled drugs in humans using the lung delivery and disposition model

The kinetic clarification of lung disposition for inhaled drugs in humans via pharmacokinetic (PK) modeling aids in their development and regulation for systemic and local delivery, but remains challenging due to its multiplex nature. This study exercised our lung delivery and disposition kinetic model to derive the kinetic descriptors for the lung disposition of four drugs [calcitonin, tobramycin, ciprofloxacin and fluticasone propionate (FP)] inhaled via different inhalers from the published PK profile data. With the drug dose delivered to the lung (DTL) estimated from the corresponding γ-scintigraphy or in vivo predictive cascade impactor data, the model-based curve-fitting and statistical moment analyses derived the rate constants of lung absorption (k_a ) and non-absorptive disposition (k_nad ). The k_a values differed substantially between the drugs (0.05-1.00 h^-1 ), but conformed to the lung partition-based membrane diffusion except for FP, and were inhaler/delivery/deposition-independent. The k_nad values also varied widely (0.03-2.32 h^-1 ), yet appeared to be explained by the presence or absence of non-absorptive disposition in the lung via mucociliary clearance, local tissue degradation, binding/sequestration and/or phagocytosis, and to be sensitive to differences in lung deposition. For FP, its k_a value of 0.2 h^-1 was unusually low, suggesting solubility/dissolution-limited slow lung absorption, but was comparable between two inhaler products. Thus, the difference in the PK profile was attributed to differences in the DTL and the k_nad value, the latter likely originating from different aerosol sizes and regional deposition in the lung. Overall, this empirical, rather simpler model-based analysis provided a quantitative kinetic understanding of lung absorption and non-absorptive disposition for four inhaled drugs from PK profiles in humans.

Biophysical model to predict lung delivery from a dual bronchodilator dry-powder inhaler

A biophysical lung model was designed to predict inhaled drug deposition in patients with obstructive airway disease, and quantitatively investigate sources of deposition variability. Different mouth-throat anatomies at varying simulated inhalation flows were used to calculate the lung dose of indacaterol/glycopyrronium [IND/GLY] 110/50 µg (QVA149) from the dry-powder inhaler Breezhaler^®. Sources of variability in lung dose were studied using computational fluid dynamics, supported by aerosol particle sizing measurements, particle image velocimetry and computed tomography. Anatomical differences in mouth-throat geometries were identified as a major source of inter-subject variability in lung deposition. Lung dose was similar across inhalation flows of 30–120 L/min with a slight drop in calculated delivery at high inspiratory flows. Delivery was relatively unaffected by inhaler inclination angle. The delivered lung dose of the fixed-dose combination IND/GLY matched well with corresponding monotherapy doses. This biophysical model indicates low extra-thoracic drug loss and consistent lung delivery of IND/GLY, independent of inhalation flows. This is an important finding for patients across various ages and lung disease severities. The model provides a quantitative, mechanistic simulation of inhaled therapies that could provide a test system for estimating drug delivery to the lung and complement traditional clinical studies.

Determination of Passive Dry Powder Inhaler Aerodynamic Particle Size Distribution by Multi-Stage Cascade Impactor: International Pharmaceutical Aerosol Consortium on Regulation & Science (IPAC-RS) Recommendations to Support Both Product Quality Control and Clinical Programs

The multi-stage cascade impactor (CI) is the mainstay method for the determination of the aerodynamic particle size distribution (APSD) of aerosols emitted from orally inhaled products (OIPs). CIs are designed to operate at a constant flow rate throughout the measurement process. However, it is necessary to mimic an inhalation maneuver to disperse the powder into an aerosol when testing passive dry powder inhalers (DPIs), which constitute a significant portion of available products in this inhaler class. Methods in the pharmacopeial compendia intended for product quality assurance initiate sampling by applying a vacuum to the measurement apparatus using a timer-operated solenoid valve located downstream of the CI, resulting in a period when the flow rate through the impactor rapidly increases from zero towards the target flow rate. This article provides recommendations for achieving consistent APSD measurements, including selection of the CI, pre-separator, and flow control equipment, as well as reviewing considerations that relate to the shape of the flow rate-sampling time profile. Evidence from comparisons of different DPIs delivering the same active pharmaceutical ingredients (APIs) is indicative that the compendial method for APSD measurement is insensitive as a predictor of pharmacokinetic outcomes. Although inappropriate for product quality testing, guidance is therefore provided towards adopting a more clinically realistic methodology, including the use of an anatomically appropriate inlet and mimicking patient inhalation at the DPI while operating the CI at constant flow rate. Many of these recommendations are applicable to the testing of other OIP classes.

LABA/LAMA fixed-dose combinations in patients with COPD: a systematic review

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to assess the current evidence for long-acting β2-agonist (LABA)/long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA) fixed-dose combinations (FDCs) in the treatment of COPD.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A systematic literature search of randomized controlled trials published in English up to September 2017 of LABA/LAMA FDCs vs LABA or LAMA or LABA/inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) FDCs in COPD patients was performed using PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and Google Scholar. Outcomes including forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1), Transition Dyspnea Index (TDI) scores, St George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) scores, exacerbations, exercise tolerance (endurance time [ET]), inspiratory capacity (IC), and rescue medication use were evaluated.

RESULTS

In total, 27 studies were included in the review. LABA/LAMA FDCs significantly improved lung function (FEV1) at 12 weeks compared with LABA or LAMA or LABA/ICS. These effects were maintained over time. Significant improvements with LABA/LAMA FDCs vs each evaluated comparator were also observed in TDI and SGRQ scores, even if significant differences between different LABA/LAMA FDCs were detected. Only the LABA/LAMA FDC indacaterol/glycopyrronium has shown superiority vs LAMA and LABA/ICS for reducing exacerbation rates, while olodaterol/tiotropium and indacaterol/glycopyrronium have been shown to improve ET and IC vs the active comparators. Rescue medication use was significantly reduced by LABA/LAMA FDCs vs the evaluated comparators. LABA/LAMA FDCs were safe, with no increase in the risk of adverse events with LABA/LAMA FDCs vs the monocomponents.

CONCLUSION

Evidence supporting the efficacy of LABA/LAMA FDCs for COPD is heterogeneous, particularly for TDI and SGRQ scores, exacerbation rates, ET, and IC. So far, indacaterol/glycopyrronium is the LABA/LAMA FDC that has the strongest evidence for superiority vs LABA, LAMA, and LABA/ICS FDCs across the evaluated outcomes. LABA/LAMA FDCs were safe; however, more data should be collected in a real-world setting to confirm their safety.

Scientific Rationale for Determining the Bioequivalence of Inhaled Drugs

In recent years, pathways for the development and approval of bioequivalent inhaled products have been established for regulated markets, including the European Union (EU), and a number of orally inhaled products (OIPs) have been approved in the EU solely on the basis of in vitro and pharmacokinetic data. This review describes how these development pathways are structured and their implications for the treatment of airway diseases such as asthma. The EU guidance follows a stepwise approach that includes in vitro criteria as the first step. If all in vitro criteria are not met, the second step is based on pharmacokinetic evaluations, which include assessments of lung and systemic bioavailability. If all pharmacokinetic criteria are not met, the third step is based on clinical endpoint studies. In this review, the scientific rationale of the European Medicines Agency guidance for the development of bioequivalent OIPs is reviewed with the focus on the development of bioequivalent OIPs in the EU. Indeed, we discuss the advantages and disadvantages of the weight-of-evidence and stepwise approaches. The evidence indicates that the EU guidance is robust and, unlike clinical endpoint studies, the pharmacokinetic studies are far more sensitive to measure the minor differences, i.e. deposition and absorption rates, in drug delivery from the test and reference products and, thus, should be best suited for assessing bioequivalence. The acceptance range of the 90% confidence intervals for pharmacokinetic bioequivalence (i.e. 80-125% for both the area under the plasma concentration-time curve and maximum plasma concentration) represent appropriately conservative margins for ensuring equivalent safety and efficacy of the test and reference products.

Considerations in establishing bioequivalence of inhaled compounds

INTRODUCTION

Generic inhalers are often perceived as inferior to their branded counterparts; however, they are safe and effective if they can meet the regulatory requirements. The approach to assess bioequivalence (BE) in oral dosage form products is not sufficient to address the complexities of inhalational products (e.g., patient-device interface); hence, more considerations are needed and caution should be applied in determining BE of inhaled compounds.

AREAS COVERED

This review outlines the evaluation process for generic inhalers, explores the regulatory approaches in BE assessment, and highlights the considerations and challenges in the current in vitro and in vivo approaches (lung deposition, pharmacokinetic, pharmacodynamic/clinical studies, and patient-device interface) for establishing BE of inhaled compounds.

EXPERT OPINION

The ultimate goals in this field are to establish uniformity in the regulatory approaches to speed the drug submission process in different regions, clear physicians' misconception of generic inhalers, and have meaningful clinical endpoints such as improvement in patient quality of life when compared to placebo and brand name drugs. As inhalational drugs become more common for other indications such as antibiotics, the technologies developed for inhaled compounds in the treatment of chronic pulmonary diseases may be extrapolated to these other agents.

Regulatory Approaches and Considerations in Establishing Bioequivalence of Inhaled Compounds

To be considered bioequivalent to their branded counterparts, generic drugs must meet the standards for bioequivalence (BE) described by the regulatory agencies. While BE of generic inhalational drugs can be evaluated using a similar approach as that for oral dosage from products or drugs that are delivered systemically, the approach is insufficient to address the complexities of inhalational products (e.g., localized site of action, device-patient interface). Therefore, more considerations are needed and caution should be applied when evaluating BE of inhaled compounds. The purpose of this review is to highlight the considerations and challenges in establishing BE of inhaled compounds by (1) outlining the current regulatory approaches (from Health Canada, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, and the European Medicines Agency) to assess BE for subsequent entry inhaled products (SEIPs) and (2) reviewing the literature pertaining to testing considerations of SEIPs to establish BE.

Maternal inhaled fluticasone propionate intake during pregnancy is detected in neonatal cord blood

BACKGROUND

Despite recommendations to use inhaled corticosteroids as treatment to control asthma during pregnancy, it is unknown whether inhaled fluticasone propionate (FP) reaches the fetus. Results & methodology: We collected maternal blood on the morning following delivery. FP was detected by ultra-performance LC-MS/MS (UPLC-MS/MS) in 9/17 asthmatic women using FP. Delay between last FP inhalation and maternal blood sampling ranged between 3 and 33 h and FP was detected in a range of 1.572-46.440 pg/ml. Among the nine offspring of these FP users, FP was detected in five cord blood samples. Delay between last predelivery FP inhalation and cord blood sampling ranged from 4 to 20 h and FP was detected in a range of 0.423-4.510 pg/ml.

CONCLUSION

Our findings demonstrate placental passage of inhaled FP.

Pharmacokinetics, Safety, and Tolerability of a New Fluticasone Propionate Multidose Dry Powder Inhaler Compared With Fluticasone Propionate Diskus(®) in Healthy Adults

BACKGROUND

Fluticasone propionate (Fp) is an inhaled corticosteroid with well-established safety and efficacy profiles. This study evaluated the systemic pharmacokinetics of Fp inhaled from a novel, inhalation-driven multidose dry powder inhaler (MDPI) that does not require coordination of actuation with inhalation.

METHODS

This was a single-center, open-label, randomized, 3-period crossover, single-dose study in healthy Japanese and Caucasian subjects aged 20-45 years, inclusive. Subjects were randomized to one of six treatment sequences including combinations of four inhalations of Fp MDPI 100 μg (400 μg total dose), Fp MDPI 200 μg (800 μg total dose), and Fp Diskus(®) 100 μg (400 μg total dose). The primary objective was to assess pharmacokinetics (maximum plasma concentration [Cmax] and area under concentration-vs.-time curve [AUC]) for each treatment. Safety and tolerability were also assessed.

RESULTS

Thirty subjects (15 Caucasian, 15 Japanese) met entry criteria and were randomized; all 30 subjects completed the study. At the inhaled Fp total doses evaluated (400 and 800 μg), the shapes of plasma concentration-vs.-time curves and systemic exposure (AUC0-t and Cmax) were similar in Japanese and Caucasian subjects. Geometric mean ratios (Japanese/Caucasian) for AUC0-t ranged from 1.11 to 1.15, and for Cmax ranged from 0.90 to 1.05, with no substantial differences between ethnic groups. In both ethnic groups, and in the combined population, systemic exposure (AUC0-t and Cmax) was highest for Fp MDPI 800 μg, followed by Fp MDPI 400 μg, and last by Fp Diskus 400 μg. No clinical laboratory, vital signs, or physical examination findings were considered clinically significant.

CONCLUSIONS

Systemic exposure following inhaled single doses of Fp was comparable in healthy adult Japanese and Caucasian subjects for each total dose and inhaler. The new MDPI provided more efficient drug delivery than Diskus, suggesting that Fp MDPI may provide similar clinical efficacy at a lower inhaled dose compared with Diskus. Single-dose inhaled Fp (400-800 μg) was generally well tolerated in healthy adults.

Equivalent Lung Dose and Systemic Exposure of Budesonide/Formoterol Combination via Easyhaler and Turbuhaler

BACKGROUND

Easyhaler(®) device-metered dry powder inhaler containing budesonide and formoterol fumarate dihydrate (hereafter formoterol) for the treatment of asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease has been developed. The current approvals of the product in Europe were based on several pharmacokinetic (PK) bioequivalence (BE) studies, and in vitro-in vivo correlation (IVIVC) modeling.

METHODS

Four PK studies were performed to compare the lung deposition and total systemic exposure of budesonide and formoterol after administration of budesonide/formoterol Easyhaler and the reference product, Symbicort Turbuhaler. The products were administered concomitantly with oral charcoal (lung deposition) and in two of the studies also without charcoal (total systemic exposure). Demonstration of BE for lung deposition (surrogate marker for efficacy) and non-inferiority for systemic exposure (surrogate marker for safety) were considered a proof of therapeutic equivalence. In addition, IVIVC models were constructed to predict study outcomes with different reference product fine particle doses (FPDs).

RESULTS

In the first pivotal study, the exposure and lung dose via Easyhaler were higher compared to the reference product (mean comparison estimates between 1.07 and 1.28) as the FPDs of the reference product batch were low. In the following studies, reference product batches with higher FPDs were utilized. In the second pivotal study, non-inferiority of Easyhaler compared to Turbuhaler was shown in safety and BE in efficacy for all other parameters except the formoterol AUCt. In the fourth study where two reference batches were compared to each other and Easyhaler, budesonide/formoterol Easyhaler was bioequivalent with one reference batch but not with the other having the highest FPDs amongst the 28 reference batches studied. In the IVIVC based study outcome predictions, the test product was bioequivalent with great proportion of the reference batches. For the test product and the median FPD reference product BE was predicted.

CONCLUSIONS

Equivalence regarding both safety and efficacy between budesonide/formoterol Easyhaler and Symbicort Turbuhaler was shown based on totality of evidence from the PK studies and IVIVC analyses, and therefore, therapeutic equivalence between the products can be concluded. The results of the PK studies are likely dependent on the variability of FPDs of the reference product batches.

A Systematic Analysis of the Sensitivity of Plasma Pharmacokinetics to Detect Differences in the Pulmonary Performance of Inhaled Fluticasone Propionate Products Using a Model-Based Simulation Approach

The role of plasma pharmacokinetics (PK) for assessing bioequivalence at the target site, the lung, for orally inhaled drugs remains unclear. A validated semi-mechanistic model, considering the presence of mucociliary clearance in central lung regions, was expanded for quantifying the sensitivity of PK studies in detecting differences in the pulmonary performance (total lung deposition, central-to-peripheral lung deposition ratio, and pulmonary dissolution characteristics) between test (T) and reference (R) inhaled fluticasone propionate (FP) products. PK bioequivalence trials for inhaled FP were simulated based on this PK model for a varying number of subjects and T products. The statistical power to conclude bioequivalence when T and R products are identical was demonstrated to be 90% for approximately 50 subjects. Furthermore, the simulations demonstrated that PK metrics (area under the concentration time curve (AUC) and C max) are capable of detecting differences between T and R formulations of inhaled FP products when the products differ by more than 20%, 30%, and 25% for total lung deposition, central-to-peripheral lung deposition ratio, and pulmonary dissolution characteristics, respectively. These results were derived using a rather conservative risk assessment approach with an error rate of <10%. The simulations thus indicated that PK studies might be a viable alternative to clinical studies comparing pulmonary efficacy biomarkers for slowly dissolving inhaled drugs. PK trials for pulmonary efficacy equivalence testing should be complemented by in vitro studies to avoid false positive bioequivalence assessments that are theoretically possible for some specific scenarios. Moreover, a user-friendly web application for simulating such PK equivalence trials with inhaled FP is provided.

In vitro dry powder inhaler formulation performance considerations

It has long been desired to match airflow conditions during formulation evaluation to those of relevance to lung deposition. In this context several strategies have been adopted involving sampling at different: flow rate (without consideration of flow conditions, e.g. shear, Reynolds number, work function); pressure drop (with and without consideration of flow conditions) and; flow rate and pressure drop. Performance testing has focused on the influence of these sampling conditions on delivered dose uniformity and aerodynamic particle size distribution. However, in order to be physiologically relevant it is also important to know when the drug was delivered with respect to initiation of airflow as variation in this parameter would influence lung deposition. A light obscuration method of detecting the dose delivered from a dry powder inhaler while sampling for aerodynamic particle size distributions (APSD) by inertial impaction has been developed. Four formulations of albuterol sulfate and budesonide in sieved and milled lactose, respectively, were dispersed and their rate of delivery monitored. The differences observed have the potential to impact the site of delivery in the lungs. The rate of delivery of drug is clearly an important companion measurement to delivered dose and APSD if the intent is to predict the similarity of in vivo performance of dry powder inhaler products.

Pharmacokinetic study for the establishment of bioequivalence of two inhalation treatments containing budesonide plus formoterol

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to compare lung deposition and assess the bioequivalence of two formulations containing budesonide and formoterol and being delivered via Elpenhaler and Turbuhaler, respectively. A pharmacokinetic (PK) study was conducted.

METHODS

An open, randomized, two-sequence, two-period, crossover, single-dose study in 100 asthmatic patients under fasting conditions was performed. Wash out period was 6 days. Equivalence in lung deposition was assessed after a single inhalation of each treatment with concomitant oral administration of activated charcoal (40 g) to prevent gastrointestinal absorption of the drugs. Several PK parameters were estimated, the area under the drug concentration in plasma versus time curve (AUC0-t ) and the maximum drug concentration in plasma (Cmax ) being the primary response variables. Equivalent lung deposition was concluded if the 90% confidence interval (CI) for the Elpenhaler/Turbuhaler geometric mean ratio of AUC0-t and Cmax , for both drug substances fell within the regulatory limits (0.80-1.25).

KEY FINDINGS

Acceptance criteria were met. Equivalent lung deposition can be concluded. No statistically significant differences between treatments in the incidence of adverse events were found.

CONCLUSIONS

The formulations are bioequivalent regarding both rate and extent of absorption. The treatments were also well tolerated by the participating subjects.

Tailoring of corticosteroids in COPD management

This literature review updates the reader on the new studies regarding steroid therapy over the last year in stable COPD and in exacerbations. In stable COPD, we critique the 2011 update and 2013 revision of the GOLD guidelines, discuss why combining inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) with long-acting beta-agonists (LABA) (ICS/LABA) is preferable over LABA alone and review the literature for intraclass differences, finding that the evidence does not clearly support superiority of any particular ICS/LABA. We also address other comparisons against ICS/LABA, including triple therapy. We briefly review which type of inhaler should be chosen. For exacerbations, we report the REDUCE trial findings favouring a 5-day course of systemic steroids, and other trials addressing which steroid and route to use, including in an intensive care setting. Lastly, the future lies in new anti-inflammatories and re-phenotyping the heterogeneous amalgamation of COPD. A Spanish guideline recommends distinguishing steroid-responsive eosinophilic exacerbators from other phenotypes.

Pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of fluticasone propionate and salmeterol delivered as a combination dry powder from a capsule-based inhaler and a multidose inhaler in asthma and COPD patients

BACKGROUND

The object of this study was to assess whether a capsule-based and multidose dry powder inhaler containing salmeterol (as xinafoate salt) 50 μg plus fluticasone propionate (FP) 250 μg [combination (SFC 50/250)] could be equivalent in terms of in vivo drug delivery and systemic exposure.

METHODS

This was a randomized, double-blind, double-dummy, replicate treatment design comparative bioavailability study of SFC 50/250 delivered in a capsule-based inhaler (Rotahaler®) and a multidose dry powder inhaler (Diskus®). Subjects with asthma or chronic obstructive pulmonary (COPD) disease (n=60) were randomized to receive twice-daily SFC 50/250 via a Rotahaler and via Diskus each for two 10-day treatment periods (GlaxoSmithKline Protocol ASR114334).

RESULTS

For FP and salmeterol, the in vitro aerodynamic particle size profiles were within±15% of Diskus for the fine particle mass (FPM) and emitted dose (ED) using the Andersen Cascade Impactor, and ED, mass median aerodynamic diameter, and geometric standard deviation using the New Generation Impactor (NGI). This was also the case for FP but not salmeterol for FPM and fine particle dose using the NGI. For the combined asthma and COPD subjects, the plasma AUC and Cmax for FP and salmeterol were higher for Rotahaler:Rotahaler/Diskus geometric mean ratios (90% confidence intervals) for FP AUC0-τ of 1.52 (1.37-1.67) and Cmax of 1.94 (1.75-2.10) and salmeterol AUC0-τ of 1.15 (1.09-1.21) and Cmax of 1.56 (1.42-1.67). Corresponding values for the primary pharmacodynamic endpoint, weighted mean (0-12 hr) serum cortisol, were 0.928 (0.886-0.971). Inhaled FP/salmeterol via both inhalers was well-tolerated. One serious adverse event, considered possibly related to study medication, resulted in subject withdrawal from the study.

CONCLUSIONS

The in vitro tests and systemic pharmacodynamic endpoints revealed no major differences between the two inhalers, but lacked predictive power and sensitivity to guide in vivo drug delivery performance and systemic exposure. Based on pharmacokinetic endpoints, the inhalers were not considered bioequivalent in terms of systemic exposure. Further studies to refine the Rotahaler performance are ongoing.

Study on requirements of bioequivalence for registration of pharmaceutical products in USA, Europe and Canada

The present study was aimed to study the requirements of bioequivalence for the registration of pharmaceutical products in the USA, Europe and Canada. Before going into bioequivalence studies it is essential for the pharmaceutical industry to study the guidelines of bioequivalence for the respective country where the industry wants to market its products and thus enter into generic market. This study reviews the requirements of bioequivalence with study parameters such as study design, fasting or fed state studies, volunteers recruitment, study dose, sampling points, analytical method validation parameters, moieties to be measured in plasma, pharmacokinetic parameters, criteria for bioequivalence, GCP requirements etc, which are needed for the pharmaceutical industry to carry out bioequivalence studies and to file ANDA. Test products and reference products are needed for this study. Test products are usually manufactured by a sponsor and reference products are provided by the government laboratories of the respective countries. Sampling points also vary with respect to the regulatory guidelines of these countries. All these countries follow ICH GCP guidelines. The criterion of bioequivalence for these countries is 90% CI 80-125% for C max, AUC t , AUC0-∞.

Bioequivalence of inhaled drugs: fundamentals, challenges and perspectives

Interest in bioequivalence (BE) of inhaled drugs derives largely from the desire to offer generic substitutes to successful drug products. The complexity of aerosol dosage forms renders them difficult to mimic and raises questions regarding definitions of similarities and those properties that must be controlled to guarantee both the quality and the efficacy of the product. Despite a high level of enthusiasm to identify and control desirable properties there is no clear guidance, regulatory or scientific, for the variety of aerosol dosage forms, on practical measures of BE from which products can be developed. As more data on the pharmaceutical and clinical relevance of various techniques, as described in this review, become available, it is likely that a path to the demonstration of BE will become evident. In the meantime, debate on this topic will continue.

Equivalence considerations for orally inhaled products for local action-ISAM/IPAC-RS European Workshop report

The purpose of this article is to document the discussions at the 2010 European Workshop on Equivalence Determinations for Orally Inhaled Drugs for Local Action, cohosted by the International Society for Aerosols in Medicine (ISAM) and the International Pharmaceutical Consortium on Regulation and Science (IPAC-RS). The article summarizes current regulatory approaches in Europe, the United States, and Canada, and presents points of consensus as well as ongoing debate in the four major areas: in vitro testing, pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic studies, and device similarity. Specific issues in need of further research and discussion are also identified.

Comparative pulmonary function and pharmacokinetics of fluticasone propionate and salmeterol xinafoate delivered by two dry powder inhalers to patients with asthma

BACKGROUND

This report presents results of the first human study of a new dry powder inhaler (DPI-C). DPI-C uses reverse flow cyclone technology to retain larger particles in the device and to increase efficiency of respirable drug release. The study was conducted to determine comparative pharmacokinetics (not bioequivalence) of DPI-C and DPI-A (Advair Diskus®, GlaxoSmithKline) and to establish preliminary efficacy and safety of DPI-C.

METHODS

Nineteen patients with mild-moderate asthma received two treatments (randomized crossover design). Treatments were one inhalation from DPI-A labeled to deliver 100 μg fluticasone propionate and 50 μg salmeterol, or one inhalation from DPI-C which contained ∼10% less of each drug per metered dose. Prior to dosing, 10 g of charcoal was administered. FEV1 increase over baseline (measured over 12 h), plasma concentrations of fluticasone and salmeterol (measured over 12.5 h), and occurrence of adverse events were the primary measures of device performance and safety.

RESULTS

Seventeen patients were evaluable. Response profiles of percent increase in FEV1 over baseline showed no statistically significant differences between devices. Peak plasma concentrations of both fluticasone (p=0.003) and salmeterol (p=0.084) were higher from DPI-C. Mean extent of absorption [area under the curve (AUC)] of fluticasone was approximately 30% greater with DPI-C, whereas AUC of salmeterol was approximately 40% greater with DPI-A.

CONCLUSIONS

DPI-C provided similar improvement in pulmonary function compared with DPI-A. Pharmacokinetic results showed a greater initial absorption of salmeterol with DPI-C but greater continued absorption and a 40% greater AUC with DPI-A, which we attribute to slower but more extensive oral absorption because of the greater mass of swallowed large particles of salmeterol generated by DPI-A. No patient reported any treatment-related adverse event or use of rescue medication during this study. Determination of the significance of the observed differences in pharmacokinetics from this single-dose study requires further exploration in studies using clinically relevant dosing regimens.

Aerosol drug delivery: developments in device design and clinical use

Aerosolised drugs are prescribed for use in a range of inhaler devices and systems. Delivering drugs by inhalation requires a formulation that can be successfully aerosolised and a delivery system that produces a useful aerosol of the drug; the particles or droplets need to be of sufficient size and mass to be carried to the distal lung or deposited on proximal airways to give rise to a therapeutic effect. Patients and caregivers must use and maintain these aerosol drug delivery devices correctly. In recent years, several technical innovations have led to aerosol drug delivery devices with efficient drug delivery and with novel features that take into account factors such as dose tracking, portability, materials of manufacture, breath actuation, the interface with the patient, combination therapies, and systemic delivery. These changes have improved performance in all four categories of devices: metered dose inhalers, spacers and holding chambers, dry powder inhalers, and nebulisers. Additionally, several therapies usually given by injection are now prescribed as aerosols for use in a range of drug delivery devices. In this Review, we discuss recent developments in the design and clinical use of aerosol devices over the past 10-15 years with an emphasis on the treatment of respiratory disorders.

Inhaler devices: what remains to be done?

The 1000 Years of Pharmaceutical Aerosols Conference convened posing the question; "what remains to be done?" When applying this question to the topic of inhaler devices, two hugely different perspectives could be taken. On the one hand, it could be argued that because there is an array of delivery systems available and the industry, prescribing physicians and patients alike have considerable choice, why would we believe it necessary to do anything further? On the other hand, as an industry, we are constantly reminded by our "customers" that the inhaler devices available are less than adequate, and in some cases woefully inadequate, that they are not "patient" friendly, not intuitive to use and importantly do nothing to encourage the patient to take the medication as intended and as prescribed. So, taking the second point of view as more reflective of reality--the Voice of the Customer--our starting point must be that there is still much to do in the field of inhaler devices. The purpose of this article is to outline some key basic requirements for inhaler design and perhaps to question some of the entrenched thinking that has pervaded inhaler product design for too many years.

Product lifecycle approach to cascade impaction measurements

Over the lifecycle of an orally inhaled product (OIP), multi-stage cascade impactor (CI) measurements are used for different purposes and to address different questions. Full-resolution CIs can provide important information during product development and are widely used but are time- and resource-intensive, highly variable, and suboptimal for OIP quality control (QC) testing. By contrast, Efficient Data Analysis (EDA) combined with Abbreviated Impactor Measurement (AIM) systems pertinent either for QC and-possibly-for adult Human Respiratory Tract (pHRT) has been introduced for OIP performance assessment during and post-development. This article summarizes available evidence and discusses a strategy for using either abbreviated or full-resolution CI systems depending on the purpose of the measurement, such that adequate, accurate, and efficient testing of aerodynamic particle size distribution (APSD) of OIPs can be achieved throughout the lifecycle of a product. Under these proposals, a comprehensive testing program should initially be conducted by full-resolution CI in OIP development to ascertain the product's APSD. Subsequently, correlations should be established from the selected AIM CIs to the corresponding full-resolution system, ideally developing specifications common to both techniques. In the commercial phase, it should be possible to release product using AIM/EDA, keeping the full-resolution CI for investigations, change control, and trouble-shooting, thus optimizing resources for APSD characterization throughout the product lifecycle. If an in vitro-in vivo relationship is established and clinically relevant sizes are known, an AIM-pHRT could serve as a quick indicator that clinically relevant fractions have not changed and also, in the management of post-approval changes.