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.

The Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare (MHLW) in Japan approved the rst generic version of Nasonex in February 2018. The Pharmaceuticals and Medical Devices Agency requires in vitro, pharmacokinetic, and pharmacodynamic or clinical endpoint data to approve generic nasal spray drug products. However, the MHLW has not published basic principle for approving nasal generic drug products. Therefore, this article summarizes the data used for the approval of the rst generic Nasonex based on publicly available data. Additionally, we compare the bioequivalence evaluations regarding the human studies based on the generic version of Nasonex between Japan and the USA.

The Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare (MHLW) in Japan approved the first generic version of Nasonex in February 2018. The Pharmaceuticals and Medical Devices Agency requires in vitro, pharmacokinetic, and pharmacodynamic or clinical endpoint data to approve generic nasal spray drug products. However, the MHLW has not published basic principle for approving nasal generic drug products. Therefore, this article summarizes the data used for the approval of the first generic Nasonex based on publicly available data. Additionally, we compare the bioequivalence evaluations regarding the human studies based on the generic version of Nasonex between Japan and the USA.

No abstract