Foreign Comparator Drug Products, Manufacturing & Supply Chain Considerations for Otic, Ophthalmic, And Parenteral Solutions - Generic Drugs Perspective.

IF 3.7 3区 医学 Q1 PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY
Andre Nana, Jonathan Hughes, Suman Dandamudi, Li Gong, April C Braddy
{"title":"Foreign Comparator Drug Products, Manufacturing & Supply Chain Considerations for Otic, Ophthalmic, And Parenteral Solutions - Generic Drugs Perspective.","authors":"Andre Nana, Jonathan Hughes, Suman Dandamudi, Li Gong, April C Braddy","doi":"10.1208/s12248-026-01243-w","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>In the United States (US), only the Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved drug products serve as comparator products in bioequivalence (BE) studies. Using foreign comparator drug products raises concerns about comparability to FDA-approved Reference Listed Drugs (RLD), particularly regarding quality standards and therapeutic equivalence. There is potential for differences in BE that may result from even slight differences between the foreign comparator and the US-approved RLD. Such discrepancies can compromise safety, efficacy, and product performance, undermining market access by disrupting manufacturing and supply chain operations for generic drug products. This paper examined biowaiver considerations, product-specific guidances, labeling requirements, and manufacturing guidelines from nine regulatory agencies: FDA, ANVISA (Brazil), COFEPRIS (Mexico), EMA (European Union), Health Canada (Canada), MHLW/PMDA (Japan), SAHPRA (South Africa), Swissmedic (Switzerland), and TGA (Australia). The analysis focused on foreign comparator drug product considerations for parenteral, otic, and ophthalmic solutions, identifying regulatory similarities and differences across jurisdictions. Generally, biowaivers for in vivo BE studies are considered acceptable for these drug products across jurisdictions. However, criteria for qualitative (Q1) and quantitative (Q2) sameness between generic and RLD formulations vary among regulatory agencies. Labeling requirements also differ, though Q1 information is typically mandated for inclusion. Regarding quality-related regulations-including specifications, container and closure systems, stability, storage conditions, and CMC post-approval changes-most regulatory authorities align with international guidelines, particularly ICH quality guidance documents. This alignment suggests potential harmonization opportunities while acknowledging jurisdictional variations in specific requirements for the utilization of foreign comparator products to establish BE for generic drug products.</p>","PeriodicalId":50934,"journal":{"name":"AAPS Journal","volume":"28 3","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.7000,"publicationDate":"2026-05-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"AAPS Journal","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1208/s12248-026-01243-w","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

In the United States (US), only the Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved drug products serve as comparator products in bioequivalence (BE) studies. Using foreign comparator drug products raises concerns about comparability to FDA-approved Reference Listed Drugs (RLD), particularly regarding quality standards and therapeutic equivalence. There is potential for differences in BE that may result from even slight differences between the foreign comparator and the US-approved RLD. Such discrepancies can compromise safety, efficacy, and product performance, undermining market access by disrupting manufacturing and supply chain operations for generic drug products. This paper examined biowaiver considerations, product-specific guidances, labeling requirements, and manufacturing guidelines from nine regulatory agencies: FDA, ANVISA (Brazil), COFEPRIS (Mexico), EMA (European Union), Health Canada (Canada), MHLW/PMDA (Japan), SAHPRA (South Africa), Swissmedic (Switzerland), and TGA (Australia). The analysis focused on foreign comparator drug product considerations for parenteral, otic, and ophthalmic solutions, identifying regulatory similarities and differences across jurisdictions. Generally, biowaivers for in vivo BE studies are considered acceptable for these drug products across jurisdictions. However, criteria for qualitative (Q1) and quantitative (Q2) sameness between generic and RLD formulations vary among regulatory agencies. Labeling requirements also differ, though Q1 information is typically mandated for inclusion. Regarding quality-related regulations-including specifications, container and closure systems, stability, storage conditions, and CMC post-approval changes-most regulatory authorities align with international guidelines, particularly ICH quality guidance documents. This alignment suggests potential harmonization opportunities while acknowledging jurisdictional variations in specific requirements for the utilization of foreign comparator products to establish BE for generic drug products.

国外比较药品,生产和供应链考虑的眼科,眼科和静脉注射解决方案-仿制药的观点。
在美国,只有食品和药物管理局(FDA)批准的药品才能作为生物等效性(BE)研究中的比较产品。使用国外比较药物引起了对fda批准的参考上市药物(RLD)的可比性的担忧,特别是在质量标准和治疗等效性方面。由于外国比较器和美国批准的RLD之间的细微差异,BE可能存在差异。这种差异可能会损害安全性、有效性和产品性能,通过扰乱仿制药的生产和供应链操作破坏市场准入。本文研究了来自9个监管机构的生物豁免考虑、产品特定指南、标签要求和生产指南:FDA、ANVISA(巴西)、COFEPRIS(墨西哥)、EMA(欧盟)、加拿大卫生部(加拿大)、MHLW/PMDA(日本)、SAHPRA(南非)、Swissmedic(瑞士)和TGA(澳大利亚)。分析的重点是国外比较药物产品对肠外、耳内和眼内解决方案的考虑,确定不同司法管辖区监管的异同。一般来说,体内BE研究的生物豁免在各个司法管辖区被认为是可接受的。然而,仿制药和RLD制剂之间的定性(Q1)和定量(Q2)一致性标准因监管机构而异。标签要求也有所不同,尽管Q1信息通常是强制包含的。关于质量相关法规,包括规格、容器和封闭系统、稳定性、储存条件和CMC批准后的变更,大多数监管机构与国际指南保持一致,特别是ICH质量指导文件。这种一致性表明了潜在的协调机会,同时承认在利用外国比较药产品建立仿制药BE的具体要求方面的司法管辖区差异。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
AAPS Journal
AAPS Journal 医学-药学
CiteScore
7.80
自引率
4.40%
发文量
109
审稿时长
1 months
期刊介绍: The AAPS Journal, an official journal of the American Association of Pharmaceutical Scientists (AAPS), publishes novel and significant findings in the various areas of pharmaceutical sciences impacting human and veterinary therapeutics, including: · Drug Design and Discovery · Pharmaceutical Biotechnology · Biopharmaceutics, Formulation, and Drug Delivery · Metabolism and Transport · Pharmacokinetics, Pharmacodynamics, and Pharmacometrics · Translational Research · Clinical Evaluations and Therapeutic Outcomes · Regulatory Science We invite submissions under the following article types: · Original Research Articles · Reviews and Mini-reviews · White Papers, Commentaries, and Editorials · Meeting Reports · Brief/Technical Reports and Rapid Communications · Regulatory Notes · Tutorials · Protocols in the Pharmaceutical Sciences In addition, The AAPS Journal publishes themes, organized by guest editors, which are focused on particular areas of current interest to our field.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书