Challenges associated with the evaluation of veterinary product bioequivalence: an AAVPT perspective

Advanced Strategies of Drug Delivery via Oral, Topical, and Parenteral Administration Routes: Where Do Equine Medications Stand?

While the global market for veterinary products has been expanding rapidly, there is still a lack of specialist knowledge of equine pharmaceutics. In many cases, the basic structure of the gastrointestinal tract (GIT) and integumentary system of the horse shares similarities with those of humans. Generally, the dosage form developed for humans can be repurposed to deliver equine medications; however, due to physiological variation, the therapeutic outcomes can be unpredictable. This is an area that requires more research, as there is a clear deficiency in literature precedence on drug delivery specifically for horses. Through a careful evaluation of equine anatomy and physiology, novel drug delivery systems (NDDSs) can be developed to adequately address many of the medical ailments of the horse. In addition to this, there are key considerations when delivering oral, topical, and parenteral drugs to horses, deriving from age and species variation. More importantly, NDDSs can enhance the duration of action of active drugs in animals, significantly improving owner compliance; and ultimately, enhancing the convenience of product administration. To address the knowledge gap in equine pharmaceutical formulations, this paper begins with a summary of the anatomy and physiology of the equine gastrointestinal, integumentary, and circulatory systems. A detailed discussion of potential dosage-form related issues affecting horses, and how they can be overcome by employing NDDSs is presented.

Challenges obtaining a biowaiver for topical veterinary dosage forms

Obtaining a biowaiver for topical drugs used in veterinary species faces many of the same challenges associated with human topicals. However, the skin of domestic animals varies anatomically and biochemically and experimental approaches to assess bioequivalence (BE) in veterinary species have challenges that are not often encountered with human skin. This is especially the situation with locally acting drugs. The focus of this paper is to address several of the challenges associated with (i) determining the BE of these locally acting drugs and (ii) critically examine the current technological advances that can act as a surrogate for clinical trials.

Establishing bioequivalence of veterinary premixes (Type A medicated articles)

a) Key issues concerning Premix (Type A medicated articles) Bioequivalence evaluations: 1) This is a complex issue concerning both route of administration and formulation. 2) If the animal is not at the bunk/trough, the animal is not self-administering (eating medicated feed), thus there can be no drug absorption. b) Differing opinions among scientists and regulatory authorities/expert bodies regarding: 1) No harmonization on how to design, conduct, and interpret in vivo studies. 2) Applicability of biowaivers to Type A (premix) products. 3) Why are topdress and complete feed considered differently? Are they different formulations or different routes of administration? 4) Single dose vs. multi-dose studies. 5) What is the final formulation? c) What are the next steps: 1) Harmonize current bioequivalence guidelines through the VICH process. 2) Determine the applicability/non-applicability of the Biopharmaceutical Classification System (BCS). 3) Establish the Total Mixed Ration (i.e. formulation) effects. 4) Define the test subject (individual, pen, etc.).

Evaluation of bioequivalence for highly variable drugs with scaled average bioequivalence

Bioequivalence studies are performed to demonstrate in vivo that two pharmaceutically equivalent products (in the US) or alternative pharmaceutical products (in the EU) are comparable in their rate and extent of absorption. By definition, for highly variable drugs (HVDs), the estimated within-subject variability is >30%. HVDs often fail to meet current regulatory acceptance criteria for average bioequivalence (ABE). The determination of the bioequivalence of HVDs has been a vexing problem since the inception of the current regulations. It is of concern not only to the generic industry but also to the innovator industry. This article reviews the definition of HVDs, the present regulatory recommendations and the approaches proposed in the literature to deal with the bioequivalence problems of HVDs. The approach of scaled ABE (SABE) is proposed as the most adequate procedure to solve the problem. It is demonstrated that SABE has firm theoretical foundations. In fact, statistical tests similar to SABE are used in various fields, such as psychology and quality control. Algorithms and numerical examples are presented to calculate SABE from the data in conventional two-period and replicate-design studies. The most important feature of SABE is that a fixed sample size is adequate to demonstrate bioequivalence regardless of within-subject variability. The conditions for reaching consistent regulatory decisions with SABE are discussed. The required sample size, for a given statistical power, depends on the regulatory criteria. Sample sizes with different criteria are demonstrated and compared with those arising from a recent informal US FDA proposal. Pragmatic considerations lead to modifications of the theoretical concept of SABE. Several modifications are proposed, including reference scaling, restriction on the estimated geometric mean ratios and possibly limiting SABE to only secondary bioequivalence metrics such as the maximum concentration. Each proposal has its own merit but is also a source of new controversy. Overall, the statistical evaluation of SABE is more complex than that of ABE, which means higher regulatory burden. Standardized open software could be very useful in this regard. A small program script is presented to calculate SABE confidence limits.

Pharmacokinetic evaluation of four ivermectin generic formulations in calves

The plasma concentration profiles of four randomly chosen ivermectin (IVM) generic formulations (IVM G1-G4) were compared after their subcutaneous (SC) administration to healthy calves. The disposition of other avermectin-type endectocide compounds, doramectin (DRM) and abamectin (ABM), was also assessed in the same pharmacokinetic trial. Forty-two parasite-free Aberdeen Angus male calves were randomly allocated into six treatment groups. Animals in each group (n = 7) received SC treatment (200 microg/kg) with one of the commercially available endectocide formulation used in the trial. Blood samples were taken into heparinised vacutainer tubes from the jugular vein prior to and up to 35 days post-treatment. The recovered plasma was analysed by HPLC with fluorescence detection. Large kinetic differences were observed among the DRM, ABM and IVM formulations under evaluation. The DRM plasma concentration profiles were higher than those measured for ABM and all the IVM generic formulations. The higher and sustained plasma concentrations of DRM accounted for greater area under concentration-time curve (AUC) and longer mean residence time (MRT) values compared to those obtained for both ABM and the IVM generic preparations. The pattern of IVM absorption from the site of subcutaneous administration showed differences among the generic formulations under evaluation. The IVM G2 preparation showed higher peak plasma concentration and AUC values (P < 0.05) compared to those obtained after the administration of the IVM G1 formulation. Longer (P < 0.05) MRT values were obtained after the administration of the IVM G3 compared to other IVM generic preparations. The kinetic behaviour of ABM did not show significant differences with that described for most of the IVM formulations. This study demonstrates that major differences on drug kinetic behaviour may be observed when using different endectocide injectable formulations in cattle.