BIOEQUIVALENCE STANDARDS
This article was originally published in The Gold Sheet
Executive Summary
...for nasal solutions draw FDA and industry attention to the issue of how large a regulatory role in vitro methods can play for novel dosage forms. An industry group is asserting that the in vitro methods for the nasal solutions are not uniform enough yet to replace the need for clinical BE testing. At the same time, manufacturers continue to urge more FDA flexibility in quality control testing requirements for inhalation/ nasal dosage forms. With the role of dissolution testing as a bioequivalence barometer continuing to expand for oral solid dosage forms, industry is seeking refinements that will make the methodology more efficient and effective. FDA investigators, meanwhile, are citing firms when dissolution testing practices do not match GMP standards.
You may also be interested in...
McKinsey Survey Highlights Progress, Challenges in Adoption of QbD
Drug manufacturers are adopting QbD but there are exceptions, especially among some generics firms, McKinsey finds in industry survey. The top challenge to further adoption: misalignment between R&D and commercial operations. Second is a lack of belief in the business case. However, the cost turns out to be low and the financial reward high, McKinsey says.
Manufacturers Encouraged to Enhance Clinical Relevance of Quality With QbD
Using QbD to set specs that make a difference to patients is hard but important work, FDA's Woodcock says. Prasugrel, levothyroxine, pallodone examples explored. How to establish a 'work space.' How to make the right correlations.
Biotech QbD Encounters Uncertainties Over Definitions and Regulatory Relief
As biotech firms begin to pilot QbD they wrestle with FDA over non-critical process parameters, postapproval changes and more. They are exploring how to define design spaces, change them, identify their edges. And they're still wondering what regulatory relief they might get in return for investing in quality-by-design studies.