Current regulatory scenario and alternative surrogate methods to establish bioequivalence of topical generic products

Update on the advances and challenges in bioequivalence testing methods for complex topical generic products

Most of the government regulatory agencies, including the United States Food and Drug Administration and the European Medicine Agency, demand that the generic complex topical products prove pharmaceutical and bioequivalence. The evaluation of bioequivalence for complex topical dermatological formulations is a challenging task that requires careful consideration of several factors. Although comparative clinical studies are still considered the gold standard approach for establishing bioequivalence in most formulations, these studies can be costly and insensitive to detect formulation differences. Therefore, significant efforts have been made to develop and validate alternative approaches that demonstrate bioequivalence and expedite the availability of high-quality generic topical dermatological products. This article reviews the current methods for determining the bioequivalence of topical formulations in humans, with particular emphasis on recent advances in these methodologies. Most of the alternative methods are sensitive and reproducible, with the capability to ease the financial burden of comparative clinical studies within a short delivery time. The limitations associated with each technique are reviewed in detail.

The Implications of Regulatory Framework for Topical Semisolid Drug Products: From Critical Quality and Performance Attributes towards Establishing Bioequivalence

Due to complex interdependent relationships affecting their microstructure, topical semisolid drug formulations face unique obstacles to the development of generics compared to other drug products. Traditionally, establishing bioequivalence is based on comparative clinical trials, which are expensive and often associated with high degrees of variability and low sensitivity in detecting formulation differences. To address this issue, leading regulatory agencies have aimed to advance guidelines relevant to topical generics, ultimately accepting different non-clinical, in vitro/in vivo surrogate methods for topical bioequivalence assessment. Unfortunately, according to both industry and academia stakeholders, these efforts are far from flawless, and often upsurge the potential for result variability and a number of other failure modes. This paper offers a comprehensive review of the literature focused on amending regulatory positions concerning the demonstration of (i) extended pharmaceutical equivalence and (ii) equivalence with respect to the efficacy of topical semisolids. The proposed corrective measures are disclosed and critically discussed, as they span from mere demands to widen the acceptance range (e.g., from ±10% to ±20%/±25% for rheology and in vitro release parameters highly prone to batch-to-batch variability) or reassess the optimal number of samples required to reach the desired statistical power, but also rely on specific data modeling or novel statistical approaches.