This March 2009 Workshop Summary Report was sponsored by Product Quality Research Institute (PQRI) based on a proposal by the Inhalation and Nasal Technology Focus Group (INTFG) of the American Association of Pharmaceutical Scientists (AAPS). Participants from the pharmaceutical industry, academia and regulatory bodies from the United States, Europe, India, and Brazil attended the workshop with the objective of presenting, reviewing, and discussing recommendations for demonstrating bioequivalence (BE) that may be considered in the development of orally inhaled drug products and regulatory guidances for new drug applications (NDAs), abbreviated NDAs (ANDAs), and postapproval changes. The workshop addressed areas related to in vitro approaches to demonstrating BE, biomarker strategies, imaging techniques, in vivo approaches to establishing local delivery equivalence and device design similarity. The workshop presented material that provided a baseline for the current understanding of orally inhaled drug products (OIPs) and identified gaps in knowledge and consensus that, if answered, might allow the design of a robust, streamlined method for the BE assessment of locally acting inhalation drugs. These included the following: (1) cascade impactor (CI) studies are not a good 2 predictor of the pulmonary dose; more detailed studies on in vitro/in vivo correlations (e.g., suitability of CI studies for assessing differences in the regional deposition) are needed; (2) there is a lack of consensus on the appropriate statistical methods for assessing in vitro results; (3) fully validated and standardized imaging methods, while capable of providing information on pulmonary dose and regional deposition, might not be applicable to the BE of inhaled products mainly due to the problems of having access to radiolabeled innovator product; (4) if alternatives to current methods for establishing local delivery BE of OIPs cannot be established, biomarkers (pharmacodynamic or clinical endpoints) with a sufficiently steep dose-response need to be identified and validated for all relevant drug classes; and (5) the utility of pharmacokinetic studies for evaluating "local pulmonary delivery" equivalence deserves more attention. A summary of action items for seminars and working groups to address these topics in the future is also presented.

No abstract

No abstract

PURPOSE: Magnetic resonance–guided radiation therapy (MRgRT) has recently become commercially available, offering the opportunity to accurately image and target moving tumors as compared with computed tomography-guided radiation therapy (CTgRT) systems. However, the costs of delivering care with these 2 modalities remain poorly described. With localized unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma as an example, we were able to use time-driven activity-based costing to determine the cost of treatment on linear accelerators with CTgRT compared with MRgRT. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Process maps, informed via interviews with departmental personnel, were created for each phase of the care cycle. Stereotactic body radiation therapy was delivered at 50 Gy in 5 fractions, either with CTgRT using fiducial placement, deep inspiration breath-hold (DIBH) with real-time position management, and volumetric-modulated arc therapy, or with MRgRT using real-time tumor gating, DIBH, and static-gantry intensity-modulated radiation therapy. RESULTS: Direct clinical costs were $7,306 for CTgRT and $8,622 for MRgRT comprising personnel costs ($3,752 v $3,603), space and equipment costs ($2,912 v $4,769), and materials costs ($642 v $250). Increased MRgRT costs may be mitigated by forgoing CT simulation ($322 saved) or shortening treatment to 3 fractions ($1,815 saved). Conversely, adaptive treatment with MRgRT would result in an increase in cost of $529 per adaptive treatment. CONCLUSION: MRgRT offers real-time image guidance, avoidance of fiducial placement, and ability to use adaptive treatments; however, it is 18% more expensive than CTgRT under baseline assumptions. Future studies that elucidate the magnitude of potential clinical benefits of MRgRT are warranted to clarify the value of using this technology.

Prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA) positron emission tomography (PET)/ computed tomography (CT) is an emerging imaging modality with greater sensitivity and specificity over conventional imaging for prostate cancer (PCa) staging. Using data from two prospective trials (NCT03368547 and NCT04050215), we