Skip to main content
Top
Published in: Clinical Pharmacokinetics 8/2020

01-08-2020 | Review Article

Evaluation of Therapeutic Equivalence for the Follow-On Version of Intravenously Administered Non-Biological Complex Drugs

Authors: Zhuo Sun, Ji Jiang, Xia Chen

Published in: Clinical Pharmacokinetics | Issue 8/2020

Login to get access

Abstract

The interchangeability evaluation for generic drugs formulated as intravenous injections normally only requires assessments of pharmaceutical equivalence (PE) when the medicinal products are simple small-molecule drugs. However, intravenously administered non-biological complex drugs (NBCDs), such as liposomes, microsphere suspension, or fat emulsion, have inherent passive disposition selectivity due to their special formulations, thereby the in vivo drug performances are improved. Because of the complexity in formulation, the in vitro pharmaceutical investigations of follow-on NBCDs are more complicated than those required for generic small-molecule drugs. In addition to qualitative and quantitative sameness of the active and inactive ingredients, it is required to comparatively study the static and kinetic microscopic particle-related physiochemical properties of the follow-on NBCDs versus the reference products. Moreover, for complex formulations that have a significant impact on the biodistribution of the drug compound, an in vivo bioequivalence (BE) study is also important. Since NBCDs that demonstrated bioequivalence through the conventional BE approach have been found inequivalent in efficacy or safety to the reference products, pivotal BE studies for follow-on NBCDs are required to take both encapsulated/total drug and free drug as the analytes to address release kinetics and biodistribution of the active pharmacological ingredient in the body. This manuscript reviews the 26 U.S. FDA published product-specific guidelines for intravenous injections. In general, these NBCDs can be stratified into four groups according to their release kinetics and ability of bio-membrane penetration. Group 1 consists of seven small-molecule, non-complex drugs; group 2 included four NBCDs with either microscale particle size or rapid dissolution property; group 3 include five loosely packed NBCDs (fat emulsions) and one quickly released ophthalmic liposomal drug; and the last group contains four cytotoxic liposomal or protein-bound NBCDs and five iron carbohydrate complexes. The requirements of the corresponding guidelines range from simple proof of PE between the test and the reference products, to a collection of studies that demonstrate the key manufacturing process (e.g. liposome loading), the particle- or vehicle-wise static and kinetic physiological characterizations, the dissolution test, and BE evaluation of both total/encapsulated drug form and free drug form between the follow-on NBCDs and their reference products. Such studies are challenging in implementation. Therefore, a variety of alternative approaches are proposed in this article.
Literature
1.
go back to reference Crommelin DJA, et al. Different pharmaceutical products need similar terminology. AAPS J. 2014;16:11–4.CrossRef Crommelin DJA, et al. Different pharmaceutical products need similar terminology. AAPS J. 2014;16:11–4.CrossRef
2.
go back to reference Bobo D, Robinson KJ, Islam J, Thurecht KJ, Corrie SR. Nanoparticle-based medicines: a review of FDA-approved materials and clinical trials to date. Pharm Res. 2016;33(10):2373–87.CrossRef Bobo D, Robinson KJ, Islam J, Thurecht KJ, Corrie SR. Nanoparticle-based medicines: a review of FDA-approved materials and clinical trials to date. Pharm Res. 2016;33(10):2373–87.CrossRef
3.
go back to reference Navya PN, Kaphle A, Daima HK. Nanomedicine in sensing, delivery, imaging and tissue engineering: advances, opportunities and challenges. Nanoscience. 2019;5:30–56.CrossRef Navya PN, Kaphle A, Daima HK. Nanomedicine in sensing, delivery, imaging and tissue engineering: advances, opportunities and challenges. Nanoscience. 2019;5:30–56.CrossRef
4.
go back to reference Crommelin DJA, de Vlieger JSB, Mühlebach S. Introduction: defining the position of nonbiological complex drugs. Non-biological complex drugs: the science and the regulatory landscape. Berlin: Springer; 2015. Crommelin DJA, de Vlieger JSB, Mühlebach S. Introduction: defining the position of nonbiological complex drugs. Non-biological complex drugs: the science and the regulatory landscape. Berlin: Springer; 2015.
5.
go back to reference Crommelin DJ, Shah VP, Klebovich I, et al. The similarity question for biologicals and non-biological complex drugs. Eur J Pharm Sci. 2015;76:10–7.CrossRef Crommelin DJ, Shah VP, Klebovich I, et al. The similarity question for biologicals and non-biological complex drugs. Eur J Pharm Sci. 2015;76:10–7.CrossRef
6.
go back to reference Vishakha A, Stephan S. NBCD pharmacokinetics and bioanalytical methods to measure drug release. Non-biological complex drugs: the science and the regulatory landscape. Berlin: Springer; 2015. Vishakha A, Stephan S. NBCD pharmacokinetics and bioanalytical methods to measure drug release. Non-biological complex drugs: the science and the regulatory landscape. Berlin: Springer; 2015.
7.
go back to reference Schellekens H, Klinger E, Mühlebach S, Brin JF, Storm G, Crommelin DJ. The therapeutic equivalence of complex drugs. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol. 2011;59(1):176–83.CrossRef Schellekens H, Klinger E, Mühlebach S, Brin JF, Storm G, Crommelin DJ. The therapeutic equivalence of complex drugs. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol. 2011;59(1):176–83.CrossRef
8.
go back to reference Holloway C, Mueller-Berghaus J, Lima BS, et al. Scientific considerations for complex drugs in light of established and emerging regulatory guidance. Ann N Y Acad Sci. 2012;1276:26–36.CrossRef Holloway C, Mueller-Berghaus J, Lima BS, et al. Scientific considerations for complex drugs in light of established and emerging regulatory guidance. Ann N Y Acad Sci. 2012;1276:26–36.CrossRef
9.
go back to reference Klein K, Stolk P, De Bruin ML, Leufkens HGM, Crommelin DJA, De Vlieger JSB. The EU regulatory landscape of non-biological complex drugs (NBCDs) follow-on products: observations and recommendations. Eur J Pharm Sci. 2019;133:228–35.CrossRef Klein K, Stolk P, De Bruin ML, Leufkens HGM, Crommelin DJA, De Vlieger JSB. The EU regulatory landscape of non-biological complex drugs (NBCDs) follow-on products: observations and recommendations. Eur J Pharm Sci. 2019;133:228–35.CrossRef
10.
go back to reference Kurki P, van Aerts L, Wolff-Holz E, Giezen T, Skibeli V, Weise M. Interchangeability of biosimilars: a European perspective. BioDrugs. 2017;31(2):83–91.CrossRef Kurki P, van Aerts L, Wolff-Holz E, Giezen T, Skibeli V, Weise M. Interchangeability of biosimilars: a European perspective. BioDrugs. 2017;31(2):83–91.CrossRef
12.
go back to reference Stern ST, Hall JB, Yu LL, Wood LJ, Paciotti GF, Tamarkin L, et al. Translational considerations for cancer nanomedicine. J Control Release. 2010;146:164–74.CrossRef Stern ST, Hall JB, Yu LL, Wood LJ, Paciotti GF, Tamarkin L, et al. Translational considerations for cancer nanomedicine. J Control Release. 2010;146:164–74.CrossRef
13.
go back to reference Bertrand N, Wu J, Xu X, Kamaly N, Farokhzad OC. Cancer nanotechnology: the impact of passive and active targeting in the era of modern cancer biology. Adv Drug Deliv Rev. 2014;66:2–25.CrossRef Bertrand N, Wu J, Xu X, Kamaly N, Farokhzad OC. Cancer nanotechnology: the impact of passive and active targeting in the era of modern cancer biology. Adv Drug Deliv Rev. 2014;66:2–25.CrossRef
14.
go back to reference Mei L, Zhang Z, Zhao L, Huang L, Yang XL, Tang J, Feng SS. Pharmaceutical nanotechnology for oral delivery of anticancer drugs. Adv Drug Deliv Rev. 2013;65:880–90.CrossRef Mei L, Zhang Z, Zhao L, Huang L, Yang XL, Tang J, Feng SS. Pharmaceutical nanotechnology for oral delivery of anticancer drugs. Adv Drug Deliv Rev. 2013;65:880–90.CrossRef
15.
go back to reference Jiang W, Kim BY, Rutka JT, Chan WC. Advances and challenges of nanotechnology-based drug delivery systems. Expert Opin Drug Deliv. 2007;4:621–33.CrossRef Jiang W, Kim BY, Rutka JT, Chan WC. Advances and challenges of nanotechnology-based drug delivery systems. Expert Opin Drug Deliv. 2007;4:621–33.CrossRef
16.
go back to reference Zhang J, Li X, Huang L. Non-viral nanocarriers for siRNA delivery in breast cancer. J Control Release. 2014;190:440–50.CrossRef Zhang J, Li X, Huang L. Non-viral nanocarriers for siRNA delivery in breast cancer. J Control Release. 2014;190:440–50.CrossRef
17.
go back to reference Duncan R, Gaspar R. Nanomedicine(s) under the microscope. Mol Pharm. 2011;8:2101–41.CrossRef Duncan R, Gaspar R. Nanomedicine(s) under the microscope. Mol Pharm. 2011;8:2101–41.CrossRef
19.
go back to reference Pai AB. Complexity of intravenous iron nanoparticle formulations: implications for bioequivalence evaluation. Ann N Y Acad Sci. 2017;1407(1):17–25.CrossRef Pai AB. Complexity of intravenous iron nanoparticle formulations: implications for bioequivalence evaluation. Ann N Y Acad Sci. 2017;1407(1):17–25.CrossRef
20.
go back to reference Stein J, Dignass A, Chow KU. Clinical case reports raise doubts about the therapeutic equivalence of an iron sucrose similar preparation compared with iron sucrose originator. Curr Med Res Opin. 2012;28(2):241–3.CrossRef Stein J, Dignass A, Chow KU. Clinical case reports raise doubts about the therapeutic equivalence of an iron sucrose similar preparation compared with iron sucrose originator. Curr Med Res Opin. 2012;28(2):241–3.CrossRef
21.
go back to reference Wu X, Tan Y, Mao H, Zhang M. Toxic effects of iron oxide nanoparticles on human umbilical vein endothelial cells. Int J Nanomedicine. 2010;5:385–99.CrossRef Wu X, Tan Y, Mao H, Zhang M. Toxic effects of iron oxide nanoparticles on human umbilical vein endothelial cells. Int J Nanomedicine. 2010;5:385–99.CrossRef
22.
go back to reference Zhao J, Castranova V. Toxicology of nanomaterials used in nanomedicine. J Toxicol Environ Health B Crit Rev. 2011;14(8):593–632.CrossRef Zhao J, Castranova V. Toxicology of nanomaterials used in nanomedicine. J Toxicol Environ Health B Crit Rev. 2011;14(8):593–632.CrossRef
23.
go back to reference Mamidi RN, Weng S, Stellar S, et al. Pharmacokinetics, efficacy and toxicity of different pegylated liposomal doxorubicin formulations in preclinical models: is a conventional bioequivalence approach sufficient to ensure therapeutic equivalence of pegylated liposomal doxorubicin products? Cancer Chemother Pharmacol. 2010;66(6):1173–84.CrossRef Mamidi RN, Weng S, Stellar S, et al. Pharmacokinetics, efficacy and toxicity of different pegylated liposomal doxorubicin formulations in preclinical models: is a conventional bioequivalence approach sufficient to ensure therapeutic equivalence of pegylated liposomal doxorubicin products? Cancer Chemother Pharmacol. 2010;66(6):1173–84.CrossRef
24.
go back to reference Driscoll D, Nicoli D. Analytical methods for determining the size (distribution) in parenteral dispersions. Non-biological complex drugs the science and the regulatory landscape. Berlin: Springer; 2015. p. 200. Driscoll D, Nicoli D. Analytical methods for determining the size (distribution) in parenteral dispersions. Non-biological complex drugs the science and the regulatory landscape. Berlin: Springer; 2015. p. 200.
25.
go back to reference Kim KM, Choi BM, Park SW, et al. Pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of propofol microemulsion and lipid emulsion after an intravenous bolus and variable rate infusion. Anesthesiology. 2007;106(5):924–34.CrossRef Kim KM, Choi BM, Park SW, et al. Pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of propofol microemulsion and lipid emulsion after an intravenous bolus and variable rate infusion. Anesthesiology. 2007;106(5):924–34.CrossRef
26.
go back to reference Jung JA, Choi BM, Cho SH, et al. Effectiveness, safety, and pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic characteristics of microemulsion propofol in patients undergoing elective surgery under total intravenous anaesthesia. Br J Anaesth. 2010;104(5):563–76.CrossRef Jung JA, Choi BM, Cho SH, et al. Effectiveness, safety, and pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic characteristics of microemulsion propofol in patients undergoing elective surgery under total intravenous anaesthesia. Br J Anaesth. 2010;104(5):563–76.CrossRef
27.
go back to reference Danielson BG. Structure, chemistry, and pharmacokinetics of intravenous iron agents. J Am Soc Nephrol. 2004;15(Suppl 2):S93–S9898. Danielson BG. Structure, chemistry, and pharmacokinetics of intravenous iron agents. J Am Soc Nephrol. 2004;15(Suppl 2):S93–S9898.
28.
go back to reference Jahn MR, Andreasen HB, Fütterer S, et al. A comparative study of the physicochemical properties of iron isomaltoside 1000 (Monofer), a new intravenous iron preparation and its clinical implications. Eur J Pharm Biopharm. 2011;78(3):480–91.CrossRef Jahn MR, Andreasen HB, Fütterer S, et al. A comparative study of the physicochemical properties of iron isomaltoside 1000 (Monofer), a new intravenous iron preparation and its clinical implications. Eur J Pharm Biopharm. 2011;78(3):480–91.CrossRef
29.
go back to reference Barrow M, Taylor A, García Carrión J, et al. Co-precipitation of DEAE-dextran coated SPIONs: how synthesis conditions affect particle properties, stem cell labelling and MR contrast. Contrast Media Mol Imaging. 2016;11(5):362–70.CrossRef Barrow M, Taylor A, García Carrión J, et al. Co-precipitation of DEAE-dextran coated SPIONs: how synthesis conditions affect particle properties, stem cell labelling and MR contrast. Contrast Media Mol Imaging. 2016;11(5):362–70.CrossRef
30.
go back to reference Lee ES, Park BR, Kim JS, Choi GY, Lee JJ, Lee IS. Comparison of adverse event profile of intravenous iron sucrose and iron sucrose similar in postpartum and gynecologic operative patients. Curr Med Res Opin. 2013;29(2):141–7.CrossRef Lee ES, Park BR, Kim JS, Choi GY, Lee JJ, Lee IS. Comparison of adverse event profile of intravenous iron sucrose and iron sucrose similar in postpartum and gynecologic operative patients. Curr Med Res Opin. 2013;29(2):141–7.CrossRef
57.
go back to reference Hsu LF, Huang JD. A statistical analysis to assess the most critical bioequivalence parameters for generic liposomal products. Int. J Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2014;52(12):1071–82.CrossRef Hsu LF, Huang JD. A statistical analysis to assess the most critical bioequivalence parameters for generic liposomal products. Int. J Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2014;52(12):1071–82.CrossRef
58.
go back to reference Parr A, Gupta M, Montague TH, Hoke F. Re-introduction of a Novel Approach to the Use of Stable Isotopes in Pharmacokinetic Studies. AAPS J. 2012;14(3):639–45.CrossRef Parr A, Gupta M, Montague TH, Hoke F. Re-introduction of a Novel Approach to the Use of Stable Isotopes in Pharmacokinetic Studies. AAPS J. 2012;14(3):639–45.CrossRef
60.
go back to reference Visser SAG, Bueters TJH. Assessment of translational risk in drug research: Role of biomarker classification and mechanism-based PKPD concepts. Eur J Pharm Sci. 2017;109:S72–7.CrossRef Visser SAG, Bueters TJH. Assessment of translational risk in drug research: Role of biomarker classification and mechanism-based PKPD concepts. Eur J Pharm Sci. 2017;109:S72–7.CrossRef
Metadata
Title
Evaluation of Therapeutic Equivalence for the Follow-On Version of Intravenously Administered Non-Biological Complex Drugs
Authors
Zhuo Sun
Ji Jiang
Xia Chen
Publication date
01-08-2020
Publisher
Springer International Publishing
Published in
Clinical Pharmacokinetics / Issue 8/2020
Print ISSN: 0312-5963
Electronic ISSN: 1179-1926
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s40262-020-00889-9

Other articles of this Issue 8/2020

Clinical Pharmacokinetics 8/2020 Go to the issue