In relation to the registration of generic products, waivers of in vivo bioequivalence studies (biowaivers) are considered in three main cases: certain dosage forms for which bioequivalence is self-evident (e.g. intravenous solutions), biowaivers based on the Biopharmaceutics Classification System and biowaivers for additional strengths with respect to the strength for which in vivo bioequivalence has been shown. The objective of this article is to describe the differences and commonalities in biowaivers for additional strengths of immediate release solid oral dosage forms between the participating members of the International Pharmaceutical Regulators Program (IPRP). The requirements are based on five main aspects; the pharmacokinetics of the drug substance, the manufacturing process, the qualitative and quantitative composition of the different strengths, and the comparative dissolution profiles. For the pharmacokinetic aspects, many regulators/agencies have the same requirements. All strengths must be manufactured with the same process, although a few regulators/agencies accept small differences. In relation to the formulation aspects, the data required breaks down into three major approaches based initially on one of those of the EU, the USA or Japan, but there are some differences in these three major approaches with some country specific interpretations. Most regulators/agencies also have the same requirements for the dissolution data, though there are some notable exceptions.

This article describes an overview of waivers of in vivo bioequivalence studies for additional strengths in the context of the registration of modified release generic products and is a follow-up to the recent publication for the immediate release solid oral dosage forms. The current paper is based on a survey among the participating members of the Bioequivalence Working Group for Generics (BEWGG) of the International Pharmaceutical Regulators Program (IPRP) regarding this topic. Most jurisdictions consider the extrapolation of bioequivalence results obtained with one (most sensitive) strength of a product series as less straightforward for modified release products than for immediate release products. There is consensus that modified release products should demonstrate bioequivalence not only in the fasted state but also in the fed state, but differences exist regarding the necessity of additional multiple dose studies. Fundamental differences between jurisdictions are revealed regarding requirements on the quantitative composition of different strengths and the differentiation of single and multiple unit dosage forms. Differences in terms of in vitro dissolution requirements are obvious, though these are mostly related to possible additional comparative investigations rather than regarding the need for product-specific methods. As with the requirements for immediate release products, harmonization of the various regulations for modified release products is highly desirable to conduct the appropriate studies from a scientific point of view, thus ensuring therapeutic equivalence.

No abstract

The requirements to waive in vivo bioequivalence studies for immediate release solid oral dosage forms based on the Biopharmaceutics Classifications System (BCS) are well known, and biowaivers[1] for other types of oral dosage forms based on pre-defined criteria may also be acceptable. Similarly, biowaivers for dosage forms such as injectable products may also be allowed if certain criteria are met. The current paper summarises the biowaiver requirements for oral solutions and suspensions, soft gelatin capsules and injectable products (intravenous injections, subcutaneous and intramuscular injections, emulsions for injection and micellar solutions for injection) among the participants of the Bioequivalence Working Group for Generics (BEWGG) of the International Pharmaceutical Regulators Programme (IPRP). A review of the requirements indicated that there was a trend towards convergence when the dosage form became less complex; however, the most common approach used by each of the jurisdictions was a case-by-case approach given that most jurisdictions do not have well defined guidelines to support all possible scenarios. Even in the simplest case of intravenous solutions, the acceptability of qualitative changes in excipients differ between the IPRP members.  Notwithstanding the differences, the dissemination of the information is a first step towards regulatory convergence regarding biowaivers for certain dosage forms and should be useful for pharmaceutical companies currently developing generic medicinal products for IPRP jurisdictions.

The safety and efficacy of a generic product are partly based on demonstrating bioequivalence to the innovator product; however, when the innovator product is no longer available as a comparator product, a survey conducted within the Bioequivalence Working Group for Generics (BEWGG) of the International Pharmaceutical Regulators Programme (IPRP) indicated that the criteria for selecting an alternative comparator product varies. For most members of the BEWGG, an existing marketed generic that was approved based on a comparison with the locally registered innovator product can be used, contingent on criteria that ranges from allowing any generic to be used, to allowing only specific criteria-defined generics to be used. Notwithstanding the acceptability of a generic as an alternative comparator, it is not always the preferred comparator for several jurisdictions. Some jurisdictions require the use of a locally sourced alternative innovator comparator (e.g., the same medicinal ingredient manufactured by a different company) or a foreign innovator comparator. Unlike the other members of the BEWGG, the European Union (EU) has no such options available, rather mechanisms are in place to allow manufacturers to develop a new comparator. The criteria described herein regarding the use of an alternative comparator product can also be applied to scenarios where a specific strength of a series of strengths or an innovative fixed dose combination are discontinued. The results of the survey demonstrate that while criteria for selecting alternative comparator products are not harmonized among the BEWGG participants, the common concern for all jurisdictions is to select a comparator product that meets the safety and efficacy standards of the original innovator product.