How Has CDER Prepared for the Nano Revolution? A Review of Risk Assessment,Regulatory Research,and Guidance Activities

The Nanotechnology Risk Assessment Working Group in the Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER) within the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) was established to assess the potential impact of nanotechnology on drug products. One of the working group’s major initiatives has been to conduct a comprehensive risk management exercise regarding the potential impact of nanomaterial pharmaceutical ingredients and excipients on drug product quality, safety, and efficacy. This exercise concluded that current review practices and regulatory guidance are capable of detecting and managing the potential risks to quality, safety, and efficacy when a drug product incorporates a nanomaterial. However, three risk management areas were identified for continued focus during the review of drug products containing nanomaterials: (1) the understanding of how to perform the characterization of nanomaterial properties and the analytical methods used for this characterization, (2) the adequacy of in vitro tests to evaluate drug product performance for drug products containing nanomaterials, and (3) the understanding of properties arising from nanomaterials that may result in different toxicity and biodistribution profiles for drug products containing nanomaterials. CDER continues to actively track the incorporation of nanomaterials in drug products and the methodologies used to characterize them, in order to continuously improve the readiness of our science- and risk-based review approaches. In parallel to the risk management exercise, CDER has also been supporting regulatory research in the area of nanotechnology, specifically focused on characterization, safety, and equivalence (between reference and new product) considerations. This article provides a comprehensive summary of regulatory and research efforts supported by CDER in the area of drug products containing nanomaterials and other activities supporting the development of this emerging technology.     

Advancing Product Quality: a Summary of the Inaugural FDA/PQRI Conference

On September 16 and 17, 2014, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and Product Quality Research Institute (PQRI) inaugurated their Conference on Evolving Product Quality. The Conference is conceived as an annual forum in which scientists from regulatory agencies, industry, and academia may exchange viewpoints and work together to advance pharmaceutical quality. This Conference Summary Report highlights key topics of this conference, including (1) risk-based approaches to pharmaceutical development, manufacturing, regulatory assessment, and post-approval changes; (2) FDA-proposed quality metrics for products, facilities, and quality management systems; (3) performance-based quality assessment and clinically relevant specifications; (4) recent developments and implementation of continuous manufacturing processes, question-based review, and European Medicines Agency (EMA)-FDA pilot for Quality-by-Design (QbD) applications; and (5) breakthrough therapies, biosimilars, and international harmonization, focusing on ICH M7 and Q3D guidelines. The second FDA/PQRI conference on advancing product quality is planned for October 5–7, 2015.     

Public engagement workshop: How to improve medicines for older people?

Public engagement in medication management has become more and more important in promoting population health. A public engagement workshop attended by 78 members of the geriatric community, family carers as well as professionals from academic research, industry and regulatory agencies entitled ‘How to improve medicines for older people?’ took place on the 2nd July 2013 at the University College London (UCL) School of Pharmacy. The main aim of the event was to provide a dynamic environment for information exchange and to identify ways of improving current and future geriatric drug therapy. The day opened with presentations from UCL School of Pharmacy researchers on the use of medicines at home, formulations, administration devices and multi-component compliance aids (MCAs) whilst a representative from UCL Interaction Centre gave an insightful presentation on human errors and resilience strategies regarding medication use. These opening presentations encouraged participants to share their own experiences as well as initiating a lively debate. Following the plenary presentations, the workshop was divided into 8 groups for parallel discussion session. These opinion sharing sessions witnessed fruitful discussions between patients, carers and researchers. The day closed with a panel session of representatives from the European Medicines Agency (EMA), the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA), the Geriatric Medicines Society and Guy's and St. Thomas’ NHS Foundation Trust (GSTT). Participants were encouraged to voice their questions, concerns and recommendations about medications. The main concern expressed by both patients and carers from the workshop were (but are not limited to) formulation changes, MCA accessibility difficulties, interactions of different medicines, carers’ concerns with the administration of medicines and not having enough knowledge of services provided by community pharmacists i.e. medicines use reviews (MURs) or new medicine service (NMS). Overall, this workshop created a useful forum for members of the geriatric community, their carers as well as research and industrial professionals to have an input in the improvement and management of geriatric drug therapy and this event also provided an excellent opportunity for the researchers to share the latest research innovations with attendees.     

Harmonization of regulatory approaches for evaluating therapeutic equivalence and interchangeability of multisource drug products: workshop summary report

Regulatory approaches for evaluating therapeutic equivalence of multisource (or generic) drug products vary among different countries and/or regions. Harmonization of these approaches may decrease the number of in vivo bioequivalence studies and avoid unnecessary drug exposure to humans. Global harmonization for regulatory requirements may be promoted by a better understanding of factors underlying product performance and expectations from different regulatory authorities. This workshop provided an opportunity for pharmaceutical scientists from academia, industry and regulatory agencies to have open discussions on current regulatory issues and industry practices, facilitating harmonization of regulatory approaches for establishing therapeutic equivalence and interchangeability of multisource drug products.     

Survey of International Regulatory Bioequivalence Recommendations for Approval of Generic Topical Dermatological Drug Products

The objective of this article is to discuss the similarities and differences in accepted bioequivalence (BE) approaches for generic topical dermatological drug products between international regulatory authorities and organizations. These drug products are locally applied and not intended for systemic absorption. Therefore, the BE approaches which serve as surrogates to establish safety and efficacy for topical dosage forms tend to differ from the traditional solid oral dosage forms. We focused on 15 different international jurisdictions and organizations that currently participate in the International Generic Drug Regulators Pilot Project. These are Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, Chinese Taipei, the European Medicines Association (EMA), Japan, Mexico, New Zealand, Singapore (a member of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations), South Africa, South Korea, Switzerland, the USA and the World Health Organization (WHO). Upon evaluation, we observed that currently only Canada, the EMA, Japan, and the USA have specific guidance documents for topical drug products. Across all jurisdictions and organizations, the three approaches consistently required are (1) BE studies with clinical endpoints for most topical drug products; (2) in vivo pharmacodynamic studies, in particular the vasoconstrictor assay for topical corticosteroids; and (3) waivers from BE study requirements for topical solutions. Japan, South Africa, the USA, and the WHO are also making strides to accept other BE approaches such as in vivo pharmacokinetic studies for BE assessment, in vivo dermatopharmacokinetic studies and/or BE studies with in vitro endpoints.KEY Words: bioequivalence, bioequivalence studies with clinical endpoints, biowaivers, dermatopharmacokinetics, topical dermatological drug products, vasoconstrictor assay     

纳米药物的监督管理

目的 为加强我国纳米药物监管,促进纳米药物的健康发展提供借鉴.方法 综述了欧洲、美国、加拿大以及日本药监部门对纳米药物发展的应对策略以及采取的具体措施.结果与结论 纳米药物的发展给现有的药品监督管理带来挑战,发达国家的药监部门正在积极了解纳米药物的性质,研究纳米药物质量控制方法和监督管理策略.     

Current Challenges in Bioequivalence,Quality, and Novel Assessment Technologies for Topical Products

This paper summarises the proceedings of a recent workshop which brought together pharmaceutical scientists and dermatologists from academia, industry and regulatory agencies to discuss current regulatory issues and industry practices for establishing therapeutic bioequivalence (BE) of dermatologic topical products. The methods currently available for assessment of BE were reviewed as well as alternatives and the advantages and disadvantages of each method were considered. Guidance on quality and performance of topical products was reviewed and a framework to categorise existing and alternative methods for evaluation of BE was discussed. The outcome of the workshop emphasized both a need for greater attention to quality, possibly, via a Quality-By-Design (QBD) approach and a need to develop a “whole toolkit” approach towards the problem of determination of rate and extent in the assessment of topical bioavailability. The discussion on the BE and clinical equivalence of topical products revealed considerable concerns about the variability present in the current methodologies utilized by the industry and regulatory agencies. It was proposed that academicians, researchers, the pharmaceutical industry and regulators work together to evaluate and validate alternative methods that are based on both the underlying science and are adapted to the drug product itself instead of single “universal” method.     

Summary Workshop Report: Facilitating Oral Product Development and Reducing Regulatory Burden Through Novel Approaches to Assess Bioavailability/Bioequivalence

This summary workshop report highlights presentations and over-arching themes from an October 2011 workshop. Discussions focused on best practices in the application of biopharmaceutics in oral drug product development and evolving bioequivalence approaches. Best practices leverage biopharmaceutic data and other drug, formulation, and patient/disease data to identify drug development challenges in yielding a successfully performing product. Quality by design and product developability paradigms were discussed. Development tools include early development strategies to identify critical absorption factors and oral absorption modeling. An ongoing theme was the desire to comprehensively and systematically assess risk of product failure via the quality target product profile and root cause and risk analysis. However, a parallel need is reduced timelines and fewer resources. Several presentations discussed applying Biopharmaceutics Classification System (BCS) and in vitro-in vivo correlations in development and in post-development and discussed both resource savings and best scientific practices. The workshop also focused on evolving bioequivalence approaches, with emphasis on highly variable products (HVDP), as well as specialized modified-release products. In USA, two bioequivalence approaches for HVDP are the reference-scaled average bioequivalence approach and the two-stage group-sequential design. An adaptive sequential design approach is also acceptable in Canada. In European Union, two approaches for HVDP are a two-stage design and an approach to widen C (max) acceptance limits. For some specialized modified-release products, FDA now requests partial area under the curve. Rationale and limitations of such metrics were discussed (e.g., zolpidem and methylphenidate). A common theme was the benefit of the scientific and regulatory community developing, validating, and harmonizing newer bioequivalence methodologies (e.g., BCS-based waivers and HVDP trial designs).     

International Guidelines for Bioequivalence of Locally Acting Orally Inhaled Drug Products: Similarities and Differences

International regulatory agencies have developed recommendations and guidances for bioequivalence approaches of orally inhaled drug products (OIDPs) for local action. The objective of this article is to discuss the similarities and differences among these approaches used by international regulatory authorities when applications of generic and/or subsequent entry locally acting OIDPs are evaluated. We focused on four jurisdictions that currently have published related guidances for generic and/or subsequent entry OIDPs. They are Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) in Australia, Health Canada (HC) in Canada, European Medicines Association (EMA) of European Union (EU), and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in the United States of America (USA). The comparisons of these bioequivalence (BE) recommendations are based on selection of reference products, formulation and inhaler device comparisons, and in vitro tests and in vivo studies, including pharmacokinetic (PK), pharmacodynamics (PD), and clinical studies. For the in vivo studies, the study design, choices of dose, subject inclusion/ exclusion criteria, study period, study endpoint, and equivalence criteria are elaborated in details. The bioequivalence on multiple-strength products and waiver options are also discussed.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1208/s12248-015-9733-9) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.KEY WORDS: bioequivalence, exhaled nitric oxide, generic, guidelines, orally inhaled drugs     

The nanomedicines alliance: an industry perspective on nanomedicines

The field of nanomedicines has expanded significantly in recent years in the breadth of compounds under development as well as in the types of technology that are being applied to generate nanomedicines. The pathway to licensure of new nanomedicines is sufficiently well defined by existing regulations and guidance. The future of nanomedicines requires collaboration between industry and regulatory agencies to ensure that safe and effective nanomedicines emerge from this field.From the Clinical EditorWith the expansion of translational nanomedicine research, the “last steps” of translation, such as making sure all regulatory approvals are met, the availability of appropriate larger-scale production technologies, are becoming critically important. This review provides a perspective from the biomedical and pharmaceutical industry on the above issues.     

Dissolution and Translational Modeling Strategies Enabling Patient-Centric Drug Product Development: the M-CERSI Workshop Summary Report

On May 15th–17th, 2017, the US FDA and the International Consortium for Innovation and Quality in Pharmaceutical Development (IQ) held a workshop at the University of Maryland’s Center of Excellence in Regulatory Science and Innovation (M-CERSI), to discuss the role of dissolution testing and translational modeling and simulation in enabling patient-centric solid oral drug product development. This 3-day event was attended by scientists from regulatory agencies, pharmaceutical companies, and academia. The workshop included podium presentations followed by breakout session discussions. The first day of the meeting focused on the challenges in dissolution method development and the role of dissolution testing throughout drug product development. On the second day, approaches to establish a link between in vitro testing and in vivo drug product performance (e.g., systemic exposure) were presented. Overall success rates and challenges in establishing IVIVCs via traditional and modern physiologically based pharmacokinetic (PBPK) modeling and simulation approaches were discussed. Day 3 provided an opportunity to discuss the expectations for establishing clinically relevant drug product specifications (CRDPS). It was recognized that understanding the impact of formulation and process variations on dissolution and in vivo performance is critical for most drug products formulated with poorly soluble drugs to ensure consistent product performance. The breakout sessions served as platforms for discussing controversial topics such as the clarification of dissolution terminology, PBPK model development and validation expectations, and approaches to set CRDPS. The meeting concluded with a commitment to continue the dialog between regulators, industry, and academia to advance overall product quality understanding.     

Update and trends on pharmacokinetic studies in patients with impaired renal function: practical insight into application of the FDA and EMA guidelines

Introduction: The incidence of kidney dysfunction increases with age and is highly prevalent among patients with hypertension. Since many therapeutic compounds are primarily eliminated through the kidneys, impaired renal function can have negative consequences on drug disposition, efficacy and safety. Therefore, regulatory agencies such as the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and European Medicines Agency (EMA) have issued detailed guidelines for new drug applications to determine posology requirements for patients with renal impairment.

Areas covered: The current review highlights and contrasts agency requirements for pharmacokinetic renal impairment clinical studies. While many of the guidelines are similar among the two agencies, glomerular filtration rate (GFR) determination and reporting differ. Design considerations for a reduced, full or dialysis renal impairment study, as well as modifications to the FDA’s draft guidance are discussed. Furthermore, scenarios where pharmacokinetic modelling analysis can benefit a drug development program are also reviewed. Moreover, practical solutions for patient recruitment challenges are addressed.

Expert commentary: We summarize how ‘one size does not fit all’ for GFR assessment, and recommend when to use certain modalities. Finally, we highlight the need for the pharmaceutical industry to engage therapeutic experts to assist in protocol development for renal impairment studies, as these experts understand the nuances of this special population and recommended guidelines.     

生物标志物在药品生命周期中的应用与展望

生物标志物(biomarker)是一种能客观测量并评价正常生物过程、病理过程或对药物干预反应的指示物,可有效提高新药研究开发决策,指导候选药物早期临床试验,降低新药研发失败的风险,其在药品生命周期中的重要作用已引起业内普遍关注。欧美等国家和地区相继出台关于生物标志物研究开发和资格鉴定程序的指南,鼓励医药企业将生物标志物作为创新药物发现的工具,在药品上市后通过生物标志物监控其安全性和有效性。本文针对我国药品生命周期特点,对生物标志物在药物基础研究、先导化合物/创新药物的设计与发现、临床前药物开发、临床研究、新药研究及上市后再评价等药品生命周期各个环节中作用情况进行综述,并对其应用前景进行展望。     

Challenges and Opportunities in Establishing Scientific and Regulatory Standards for Assuring Therapeutic Equivalence of Modified Release Products: Workshop Summary Report

Modified release products are complex dosage forms designed to release drug in a controlled manner to achieve desired efficacy and safety. Inappropriate control of drug release from such products may result in reduced efficacy or increased toxicity. This workshop provided an opportunity for pharmaceutical scientists from academia, industry, and regulatory agencies to discuss current industry practices and regulatory expectations for demonstrating pharmaceutical equivalence and bioequivalence of MR products, further facilitating the establishment of regulatory standards for ensuring therapeutic equivalence of these products.     

Workshop/Conference Report on EMA Draft Guideline on Validation of Bioanalytical Methods

This is a summary report of the workshop on the EMA Draft Guideline on Validation of Bioanalytical Methods held April 15–16th 2010 in Brussels (Belgium) and jointly organised by the European Bioanalysis Forum (EBF) and the European Federation for Pharmaceutical Sciences (EUFEPS). Aim of the workshop was to discuss the current scientific knowledge in the area of bioanalysis, the regulatory requirements with special focus on the new Draft Guideline and their subsequent implementation to the work in bioanalytical laboratories. Comments on the Draft Guideline were presented and discussed with representatives from regulatory authorities in Europe. The workshop started with discussions on the scope of the Guideline and the need for implementation of GLP. A special focus was set on method validation of chromatographic procedures and subsequent study sample analysis. In addition, requirements for ligand-binding assays were briefly addressed. Intention of this Conference Report is to summarise important aspects of the discussions in order to draw certain conclusions, and to identify points which remain open and may require clarification at a later stage.     

FDA/M-CERSI Co-Processed API Workshop Proceedings

These proceedings contain presentation summaries and discussion highlights from the University of Maryland Center of Excellence in Regulatory Science and Innovation (M-CERSI) Workshop on Co-processed API, held on July 13 and 14, 2022. This workshop examined recent advances in the use of co-processed active pharmaceutical ingredients as a technology to improve drug substance physicochemical properties and drug product manufacturing process robustness, and explored proposals for enabling commercialization of these transformative technologies. Regulatory considerations were discussed with a focus on the classification, CMC strategies, and CMC documentation supporting the use of this class of materials from clinical studies through commercialization. The workshop format was split between presentations from industry, academia and the FDA, followed by breakout sessions structured to facilitate discussion. Given co-processed API is a relatively new concept, the authors felt it prudent to compile these proceedings to gain further visibility to topics discussed and perspectives raised during the workshop, particularly during breakout discussions.Disclaimer: This paper reflects discussions that occurred among stakeholder groups, including FDA, on various topics. The topics covered in the paper, including recommendations, therefore, are intended to capture key discussion points. The paper should not be interpreted to reflect alignment on the different topics by the participants, and the recommendations provided should not be used in lieu of FDA published guidance or direct conversations with the Agency about a specific development program. This paper should not be construed to represent FDA's views or policies.     

Regulatory perspective on the importance of ADME assessment of nanoscale material containing drugs

The promise of nanoscale material containing drug products to treat complex diseases is mounting. According to the literature, in addition to the liposomes, micelles, emulsions, there are novel drug delivery systems such as dendrimers and metal colloids at different stages of pre-clinical and clinical development. With the anticipation that more nanoscale material containing drug products will be submitted to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for approval in the future, FDA formed a Nanotechnology Task Force in 2006 to determine the critical regulatory issues regarding nanomaterials. As a result, all centers within the FDA are considering the development of guidance documents to address nanomaterial specific issues.It is well established in the literature that physico-chemical characterization (PCC) studies are crucial for nanomaterial containing drug products. However, this paper addresses the equally important topic of Absorption, Distribution, Metabolism and Excretion (ADME) studies for nanomaterials and provides examples of how physical properties affect biodistribution (i.e. the state of agglomeration, or aggregation, surface characteristics, stability of PEG). This paper also attempts to highlight some of the ADME study design issues related to nanomaterials such as the need for conducting biodistribution studies on each moiety of the multifunctional nanoparticles, dual labeled pharmacokinetic (PK) studies, and comparative PK studies on the free versus encapsulated drugs. In addition, this paper underlines the importance of long-term biodistribution and mass balance studies to understand the nanoparticle accumulation profile which may help to assess the safety and efficacy of the nanomaterial containing drug products. This review also lists some of the pre-clinical guidance documents that may help sponsors get started in developing data for inclusion in an initial investigational new drug application package for nanoscale material containing drug products.