Current Approaches to Demonstration of Therapeutic Equivalence of Locally-Acting Gastrointestinal Drugs

Evolution of knowledge about pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of locally acting products, and an increase in the number of generics and medicines under development have laid the ground for the development of new scientific approaches to planning and conducting of therapeutic equivalence studies of medicinal products acting locally in the gastrointestinal (GI) tract. To date, many international guidelines on planning and conducting of bioequivalence (BE) studies of locally acting GI products have been updated, however, there are still no such guidelines in the Russian Federation and the Eurasian Economic Union (EAEU). Therefore, elaboration of common methodological approaches to the planning of clinical studies of these products is of particular relevance for the EAEU. The aim of the study was to analyse foreign approaches to planning, conducting, and evaluation of therapeutic equivalence studies of locally acting GI products. The paper analyses the guidelines of the European Medicines Agency and the US Food and Drug Administration on the planning, conduct, and evaluation of BE studies of locally acting GI products. The analysis demonstrated that BE clinical trials are giving way to in vitro studies providing a sensitive and accurate assessment of the differences between a locally acting GI product and the reference product, based on careful consideration of the medicine’s mechanism of action, dosage form, and site of action. The paper gives examples of test methods applied to medicinal products with a complex biopharmaceutical profile whose bioequivalence assessment is challenging, with a special focus on mesalazine products. The results of the analysis may be used for elaboration of a harmonised methodological approach to planning and conducting therapeutic equivalence studies of locally acting GI products in the Russian Federation and EAEU.

1. Vetchy D, Frybortova K, Rabiskova M, Daneckova H. Bioequivalence studies of pharmaceutical preparations. Cas Lek Cesk. 2007;146(5):431–3. PMID: 175549632.

2. Горячев ДВ, Уварова НЕ. Обоснование возможности проведения исследований терапевтической эквивалентности. Ведомости Научного центра экспертизы средств медицинского применения. 2019;9(2):79–84. [Goryachev DV, Uvarova NE. Substantiation of the possibility of conducting therapeutic equivalence studies. Vedomosti Nauchnogo tsentra ekspertizy sredstv meditsinskogo primeneniya = The Bulletin of the Scientific Centre for Expert Evaluation of Medicinal Products. 2019;9(2):79–4 (In Russ.)] https://doi.org/10.30895/1991-2919-2019-9-2-79-84.

3. Jiang X, Yang Y, Stier E. Bioequivalence for drug products acting locally within gastrointestinal tract. In: Yu LX, Li BV, eds. FDA Bioequivalence Standards. New York – Heidelberg – Dordrecht – London: Springer; 2014. P. 297–334.

4. Yu A, Sun D, Li BV, Yu LX. Bioequivalence history. In: Yu LX, Li BV, eds. FDA Bioequivalence Standards. New York – Heidelberg – Dordrecht – London: Springer; 2014.P. 1–27.

5. Zhang X, Zheng N, Lionberger RA, Yu LX. Innovative approaches for demonstration of bioequivalence: the US FDA perspective. Ther Deliv. 2013;4(6):725–40. https://doi.org/10.4155/tde.13.41

6. Chen ML, Shah V, Patnaik R, Adams WA, Hussain A, Conner D, et al. Bioavailability and bioequivalence: an FDA regulatory overview. Pharm Res. 2001;18(12):1645–50. https://doi.org/10.1023/a:1013319408893

7. Zou P, Yu LX. Pharmacodynamic endpoint bioequivalence studies. In: Yu LX, Li BV, eds. FDA Bioequivalence Standards. New York – Heidelberg – Dordrecht – London: Springer; 2014.P. 217–41.

8. Shreya AB, Raut SY, Managuli RS, Udupa N, Mutalik S. Active targeting of drugs and bioactive molecules via oral administration by ligand-conjugated lipidic nanocarriers: recent advances. AAPS Pharm SciTech. 2018;20(1):15. https://doi.org/10.1208/s12249-018-1262-2

9. Homayun B, Lin X, Choi HJ. Challenges and recent progress in oral drug delivery systems for biopharmaceuticals. Pharmaceutics. 2019;11(3):129. https://doi.org/10.3390/pharmaceutics11030129

10. Hua S. Advances in oral drug delivery for regional targeting in the gastrointestinal tract – influence of physiological, pathophysiological and pharmaceutical factors. Front Pharmacol. 2020;11:524. https://doi.org/10.3389/fphar.2020.00524

11. Sferrazza G, Siviero PD, Nicotera G, Turella P, Serafino A, Blandizzi C, Pierimarchi P. Regulatory framework on bioequivalence criteria for locally acting gastrointestinal drugs: the case for oral modified release mesalamine formulations. Expert Rev Clin Pharmacol. 2017;10(9):1007–19. https://doi.org/10.1080/17512433.2017.1348227

12. Lionberger RA. FDA critical path initiatives: opportunities for generic drug development. AAPS J. 2008;10(1):103–9. https://doi.org/10.1208/s12248-008-9010-2

13. Wilson AM, Lipworth BJ. Dose-response evaluation of the therapeutic index for inhaled budesonide in patients with mild-to-moderate asthma. Am J Med. 2000;108(4):269–75. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0002-9343(99)00435-0

14. Silkoff PE, McClean P, Spino M, Erlich L, Slutsky AS, Zamel N. Dose–response relationship and reproducibility of the fall in exhaled nitric oxide after inhaled beclomethasone dipropionate therapy in asthma patients. Chest. 2001; 119(5):1322–8. https://doi.org/10.1378/chest.119.5.1322

15. Kharitonov SA, Barnes PJ. Effects of corticosteroids on noninvasive biomarkers of inflammation in asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Proc Am Thorac Soc. 2004;1(3):191–9. https://doi.org/10.1513/pats.200402-011ms

16. Zietkowski Z, Kucharewicz I, Bodzenta-Lukaszyk A. The influence of inhaled corticosteroids on exhaled nitric oxide in stable chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Respir Med. 2005;99(7):816–24. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rmed.2004.12.008

17. Steinijans VW, Neuhäuser M, Bretz F. Equivalence concepts in clinical trials. Eur J Drug Metab Pharmacokinet. 2000;25(1):38–40. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf03190056

18. Laster LL, Johnson MF. Non-inferiority trials: the ‘at least as good as’ criterion. Stat Med. 2003;22(2):187–200. https://doi.org/10.1002/sim.1137

19. Zhang Z. Non-inferiority testing with a variable margin. Biom J. 2006;48(6):948–65. https://doi.org/10.1002/bimj.200610271

20. Zhi J, Melia AT, Eggers H, Joly R, Patel IH. Review of limited systemic absorption of orlistat, a lipase inhibitor, in healthy human volunteers. J Clin Pharmacol. 1995;35(11):1103–8. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1552-4604.1995.tb04034.x

21. Schröder H, Campbell DE. Absorption, metabolism and excretion of salicylazosulfapyridine in man. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 1972;13(4):539–51. https://doi.org/10.1002/cpt1972134539

22. Qureshi AI, Cohen RD. Mesalamine delivery system: do they really make much difference? Adv Drug Deliv Rev. 2005; 57(2):281–302. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.addr.2004.08.008

23. Myers B, Evans DN, Rhodes J, Evans BK, Hughes BR, Lee MG, et al. Metabolism and urinary excretion of 5-amino salicylic acid in healthy volunteers when given intravenously or released for absorption at different sites in the gastrointestinal tract. Gut. 1987;28(2):196–200. https://doi.org/10.1136/gut.28.2.196

24. Rudolph MW, Klein S, Beckert TE, Petereit H, Dressman JB.A new 5-aminosalicylic acid multi-unit dosage form for the therapy of ulcerative colitis. Eur J Pharm Biopharm. 2001;51(3):183–90. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0939-6411(01)00134-5

25. Sandborn WJ. Rational selection of oral 5-aminosalicylate formulations and prodrugs for the treatment of ulcerative colitis. Am J Gastroentero. 2002;97(12):2939–41. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1572-0241.2002.07092.x

26. Aumais G, Lefebvre M, Tremblay C, Bitton A, Martin F, Giard A, et al. Rectal tissue, plasma and urine concentrations of mesalamine after single and multiple administrations of 500 mg suppositories to healthy volunteers and ulcerative proctitis patients. Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2003;17(1):93–7. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2036.2003.01409.x