首页 > 资讯 > FDA对异丙酚注射剂的新BE要求

出自识林

2016-06-19 Lachman CONSULTANTS

6月16日FDA新发布19种药品的生物等效性（BE）指南，同时修订了另外19种药品的BE指南，其中一篇关于异丙酚注射剂的新发布BE指南引人关注。

所关注的问题涉及对产品配方定量（Q1）和定性（Q2）相同超出过去要求的新规定。对于大多数非肠道产品，只要申请人“鉴别和表征出存在的差异，并提供信息证明这些差异不影响药品的安全性或有效性”，21CFR314.94 (a)(9)(iii)的法规允许在非活性成分、防腐剂、缓冲剂或抗氧化剂三类成分方面的变更。在异丙酚注射剂的案例中，从历史上看，仿制药办公室（OGD）允许该产品在防腐剂方面的差异，而不需要体内生物等效性研究，并且如果一系列体外研究发现可接受的话，会豁免体内生物等效性要求（请参看来自Drugs@FDA的一篇ANDA生物等效性审评）。然而，在新发布的指南中，仅在产品配方与参照产品（RLD）Q1和Q2相同的情况下才准许体内豁免。在描述体内研究时，指南的一个脚注表明“对包含不同缓冲剂、防腐剂或抗氧化剂的待测产品也会要求体内药代动力学生物等效性研究”。当然，如果任何体外或物理化学研究不能证明可接受的结果，将要求体内研究。此外，FDA还要求申请人证明拟定的产品如RLD标签所述在不同的静脉输液中是稳定的。尚不清楚是什么原因促使FDA修改其BE指南。

橙皮书中所列的参照产品是Diprivan，但含有不同防腐剂的ANDA被列为已获批产品而不是RLD。如果另一申请人希望使用已获批的ANDA中使用的防腐剂作为产品配方，不清楚FDA将会如何执行BE要求。

Lachman CONSULTANTS - Bob Pollock先生
编译：识林-椒
识林^®www.shilinx.com版权所有，未经许可不得转载。如需使用请联系admin@shilinx.com

New BE Requirements for Propofol Injection
By Bob Pollock | June 16, 2016

Today, the FDA issued 19 new and 19 revised bioequivalence (BE) recommendations for the conduct studies of products subject to abbreviated new drug applications (ANDAs). One of the new recommendation relative to propofol injection caught my eye.

The issue of interest concerns the newly stated requirement for quantitative (Q1) and qualitative (Q2) sameness of the formulation of product beyond what has been required in the past. For most parenteral products, the regulations at 21 CFR 314.94(a)(9)(iii) permit changes in three types of inactive ingredients, preservative, buffer or antioxidant as long as the applicant “Identifies and characterizes the differences and provides information demonstrating that the differences do not affect the safety or efficacy of the proposed drug product.” In the case of propofol injection, historically, OGD has permitted differences in preservative for this product without requiring an in vivo bioequivalence study and would granted a waiver of the in vivo bioequivalence requirement if a series of in vitro tests were found acceptable (see review of ANDA BE study from Drugs@FDA here). However, in the newly issued Guidance, a waiver of in vivo requirements will only be granted if the formulations of the proposed product and reference listed drug (RLD) are both Q1 and Q2. When describing the in vivo study, a footnote found in the Guidance reads “[a]n in vivo pharmacokinetic bioequivalence study will also be requested for a test product which contains a different buffer, preservative or antioxidant.” And, of course, if any of the in vitro and or physicochemical testing does not demonstrate acceptable results, an in vivo study will be required. In addition, FDA is also asking applicants to demonstrate that the proposed product is stable in various IV fluids, cited in the labeling of the RLD. It is also not clear what prompted FDA to change its recommendations.

It is interesting that the RLD listed in the Orange Book is Diprivan, but the ANDA subject of a different preservative (see review linked above) is a listed approved product but not an RLD. It is not clear where the FDA will land relative to BE requirements should another applicant wish to formulate its product with the preservative used in the ANDA cited in the review linked above. The new propofol BE Guidance can be found here.