Current Regulatory Standpoint on Evaluating the Bioequivalence of Different Classes of Generic Drugs - Is the Evaluation in the Right Direction?

Simultaneous Determination of Loratadine and Its Metabolite Desloratadine in Beagle Plasma by LC-MS/MS and Application for Pharmacokinetics Study of Loratadine Tablets and Omeprazole‑Induced Drug-Drug Interaction

Background

Loratadine (LTD) is a Biopharmaceutical Classification System II basic drug with pH-sensitive aqueous solubility and dissolution is a speed-limiting step of its absorption. The drug dissolution and the gastrointestinal tract pH conditions are likely to influence the in vivo pharmacokinetic behavior of LTD tablets.

Materials and Method

A rapid, sensitive, and reliable bioanalytical method for simultaneous quantitation of LTD and its active metabolite desloratadine (DL) in beagle plasma was developed and validated based on liquid chromatography tandem mass spectrometry (LC-MS/MS). Sample preparation in low plasma consumption was accomplished by liquid–liquid extraction. The chromatographic separation was achieved on a Phenomenex Kinetex C8 column using acetonitrile and 5 mM ammonium formate as the mobile phase. A comparative pharmacokinetics study of three LTD tablets with different dissolution rates was conducted in male beagles in fasting state and an omeprazole-induced drug–drug interaction (DDI) study was subsequently performed under pretreatment of omeprazole.

Results and Conclusion

The method showed a good linear correlation over the concentration ranges of 0.008–24 ng/mL for LTD and 0.8–800 ng/mL for DL, and was successfully applied to analyze the two compounds in beagle plasma. Pharmacokinetic results showed in the fasting state the three LTD tablets were equivalent in beagles in terms of effective components. DL of the three tablets were equivalent, indicating metabolite was less susceptible to pharmaceutic preparation factors for LTD tablets in beagles. Moreover, significant changes in LTD and DL pharmacokinetics parameters were observed under the effect of omeprazole-induced pH increase in gastrointestinal tract, suggesting that DDI effects are of concern for the curative effect of LTD when combined with omeprazole. The findings will contribute to the future pharmaceutical preparations research as well as the clinical application of LTD.

Has the Time Come to Employ Population and Individual Bioequivalence for the Evaluation of Generics?

BACKGROUND

Bioequivalence studies are a vital part of drug development. The average bioequivalence approach is the standard method of assessment to conclude whether the generic product is bioequivalent to the innovator product. Of late, debates are on whether the average bioequivalence approach adequately addresses drug interchangeability as it considers only population mean for the evaluation especially when highly variable drug products and narrow therapeutic index drugs are dealt with. Hence, the alternative approaches like population bioequivalence and individual bioequivalence assessment approaches emerge as they consider inter/intra-subject variance and subject- by-formulation variance along with population mean.

OBJECTIVES

The objective of the study was to apply different bioequivalence assessment approaches in a replicate bioequivalence study to evaluate the drug interchangeability.

METHODS

This was an open-label, single-dose, randomized, balanced, two-treatment, three-period, three-sequence, partial replicate crossover bioequivalence study of omeprazole enteric-coated tablet 20 mg conducted on 48 normal healthy subjects under fed conditions. The plasma concentration of omeprazole was analyzed by a validated bioanalytical method to determine the pharmacokinetic and statistical parameters to assess average bioequivalence, population bioequivalence, and individual bioequivalence.

RESULTS

In this study, test formulation was shown to be bio-inequivalent to the reference formulation by average bioequivalence, population bioequivalence, and individual bioequivalence approaches.

CONCLUSION

The outcome of the evaluation clearly states that the bioequivalence outcome of all these approaches are the same. Obviously, it does not mean that these three approaches provide the same outcome though the consideration of variances varies. Certainly, population bioequivalence and individual bioequivalence approach will be more accurate for the assessment of drug interchangeability.