Andre Nana, Jonathan Hughes, Suman Dandamudi, Li Gong, April C Braddy
{"title":"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。","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":"{\"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}","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}
Foreign Comparator Drug Products, Manufacturing & Supply Chain Considerations for Otic, Ophthalmic, And Parenteral Solutions - Generic Drugs Perspective.
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.
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.