The Use of Systemically Absorbed Drugs to Explore An In Vitro Bioequivalence Approach For Comparing Non-Systemically Absorbed Active Pharmaceutical Ingredients in Drug Products For Use in Dogs
-
Published:2024-09-09
Issue:
Volume:
Page:
-
ISSN:0724-8741
-
Container-title:Pharmaceutical Research
-
language:en
-
Short-container-title:Pharm Res
Author:
Martinez Marilyn N.,Fahmy Raafat,Li Linge,Herath Kithsiri,Hollenbeck R. Gary,Ibrahim Ahmed,Hoag Stephen W.,Longstaff David,Gao Shasha,Myers Michael J.
Abstract
Abstract
Purpose
Currently, for veterinary oral formulations containing one or more active pharmaceutical ingredient (API) that are not systemically absorbed and act locally within the gastrointestinal (GI) tract, the use of terminal clinical endpoint bioequivalence (BE) studies is the only option for evaluating product BE. This investigation explored the use of a totality of evidence approach as an alternative to these terminal studies.
Methods
Three formulations of tablets containing ivermectin plus praziquantel were manufactured to exhibit distinctly different in vitro release characteristics. Because these APIs are highly permeable, plasma drug concentrations served as a biomarker of in vivo dissolution. Tablets were administered to 27 healthy Beagle dogs (3-way crossover) and the rate and extent of exposure of each API for each formulation was compared in a pairwise manner. These results were compared to product relative in vitro dissolution profiles in 3 media. In vivo and in vitro BE predictions were compared.
Results
In vivo/in vitro inconsistencies in product relative performance were observed with both compounds when considering product performance across the 3 dissolution media. Formulation comparisons flagged major differences that could explain this outcome.
Conclusions
The finding of an inconsistent in vivo/in vitro relationship confirmed that in vitro dissolution alone cannot assure product BE for veterinary locally acting GI products. However, when combined with a comparison of product composition and manufacturing method, this totality of evidence approach can successfully alert scientists to potential therapeutic inequivalence, thereby supporting FDA’s efforts to Replace, Reduce, and/or Refine terminal animal studies.
Funder
U.S. Food and Drug Administration
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Reference37 articles.
1. Charmot D. Non-systemic drugs: a critical review. Curr Pharm Des. 2012;18(10):1434–45. https://doi.org/10.2174/138161212799504858.
2. FDA Guidance for industry. Guidance #35 Bioequivalence, November 2006. https://www.fda.gov/regulatory-information/search-fda-guidance-documents/cvm-gfi-35-bioequivalence-guidance Accessed 06/04/2024.
3. Bermingham E, Del Castillo JR, Lainesse C, Pasloske K, Radecki S. Demonstrating bioequivalence using clinical endpoint studies. J Vet Pharmacol Ther. 2012;35(Suppl 1):31–7. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2885.2012.01366.x.
4. Animal Use Alternatives (3Rs). USDA https://www.nal.usda.gov/animal-health-and-welfare/animal-use-alternatives Accessed 06/04/2024.
5. What is antiparasitic resistance. https://www.fda.gov/animal-veterinary/safety-health/antiparasitic-resistance Accessed 06/04/2024.