David Christopher

Minimizing Variability of Cascade Impaction Measurements in Inhalers and Nebulizers

The purpose of this article is to catalogue in a systematic way the available information about factors that may influence the outcome and variability of cascade impactor (CI) measurements of pharmaceutical aerosols for inhalation, such as those obtained from metered dose inhalers (MDIs), dry powder inhalers (DPIs) or products for nebulization; and to suggest ways to minimize the influence of such factors. To accomplish this task, the authors constructed a cause-and-effect Ishikawa diagram for a CI measurement and considered the influence of each root cause based on industry experience and thorough literature review. The results illustrate the intricate network of underlying causes of CI variability, with the potential for several multi-way statistical interactions. It was also found that significantly more quantitative information exists about impactor-related causes than about operator-derived influences, the contribution of drug assay methodology and product-related causes, suggesting a need for further research in those areas. The understanding and awareness of all these factors should aid in the development of optimized CI methods and appropriate quality control measures for aerodynamic particle size distribution (APSD) of pharmaceutical aerosols, in line with the current regulatory initiatives involving quality-by-design (QbD).

Challenges with developing in vitro dissolution tests for orally inhaled products (OIPs).

The purpose of this article is to review the suitability of the analytical and statistical techniques that have thus far been developed to assess the dissolution behavior of particles in the respirable aerodynamic size range, as generated by orally inhaled products (OIPs) such as metered-dose inhalers and dry powder inhalers. The review encompasses all analytical techniques publicized to date, namely, those using paddle-over-disk USP 2 dissolution apparatus, flow-through cell dissolution apparatus, and diffusion cell apparatus. The available techniques may have research value for both industry and academia, especially when developing modified-release formulations. The choice of a method should be guided by the question(s) that the research strives to answer, as well as by the strengths and weaknesses of the available techniques. There is still insufficient knowledge, however, for translating the dissolution data into statements about quality, performance, safety, or efficacy of OIPs in general. Any attempts to standardize a dissolution method for compendial inclusion or compendial use would therefore be premature. This review reinforces and expands on the 2008 stimulus article of the USP Inhalation Ad Hoc Advisory Panel, which “could not find compelling evidence suggesting that such dissolution testing is kinetically and/or clinically crucial for currently approved inhalation drug products.”

Product quality research institute evaluation of cascade impactor profiles of pharmaceutical aerosols, part 3: Final report on a statistical procedure for determining equivalence

The purpose of this article is to report final results of the evaluation of a chi-square ratio test proposed by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for demonstrating equivalence of aerodynamic particle size distribution (APSD) profiles of nasal and orally inhaled drug products. A working group of the Product Quality Research Institute previously published results demonstrating some limitations of the proposed test. In an effort to overcome the test’s limited discrimination, the group proposed a supplemental test, a population bioequivalence (PBE) test for impactor-sized mass (ISM). In this final report the group compares the chi-square ratio test to the ISM-PBE test and to the combination of both tests. The basis for comparison is a set of 55 realistic scenarios of cascade impactor data, which were evaluated for equivalence by the statistical tests and independently by the group members. In many instances, the combined application of these 2 tests appeared to increase the discriminating ability of the statistical procedure compared with the chi-square ratio test alone. In certain situations the chi-square ratio test alone was sufficient to determine equivalence of APSD profiles, while in other situations neither of the tests alone nor their combination was adequate. This report describes all of these scenarios and results. In the end, the group did not recommend a statistical test for APSD profile equivalence. The group did not investigate other in vitro tests, in vivo issues, or other statistical tests for APSD profile comparisons. The studied tests are not intended for routine quality control of APSD.

Product Quality Research Institute Evaluation of Cascade Impactor Profiles of Pharmaceutical Aerosols, Part 1: Background for a Statistical Method

The purpose of this article is 2-fold: (1) to document in the public domain the considerations that led to the development of a regulatory statistical test for comparison of aerodynamic particle size distribution (APSD) of aerosolized drug formulations, which was proposed in a US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) draft guidance for industry; and (2) to explain the background and process for evaluation of that test through a working group involving scientists from the FDA, industry, academia, and the US Pharmacopeia, under the umbrella of the Product Quality Research Institute (PQRI). The article and the referenced additional statistical information posted on the PQRI Web site explain the reasoning and methods used in the development of the APSD test, which is one of the key tests required for demonstrating in vitro equivalence of orally inhaled and nasal aerosol drug products. The article also describes the process by which stakeholders with different perspectives have worked collaboratively to evaluate properties of the test by drawing on statistical models, historical and practical information, and scientific reasoning. Overall, this article provides background information to accompany the companion articles discussion of the studys methods and results.

Improved Quality Control Metrics for Cascade Impaction Measurements of Orally Inhaled Drug Products (OIPs)

This study of aerodynamic mass-weighted particle size distribution (APSD) data from orally inhaled products (OIPs) investigated whether a set of simpler (than currently used) metrics may be adequate to detect changes in APSD for quality control (QC) purposes. A range of OIPs was examined, and correlations between mass median aerodynamic diameter and the ratio of large particle mass (LPM) to small particle mass (SPM) were calculated. For an Andersen cascade impactor, the LPM combines the mass associated with particle sizes from impactor stage 1 to a product-specific boundary size; SPM combines the mass of particles from that boundary through to terminal filter. The LPM–SPM boundary should be chosen during development based on the full-resolution impactor results so as to maximize the sensitivity of the LPM/SPM ratio to meaningful changes in quality. The LPM/SPM ratio along with the impactor-sized mass (ISM) are by themselves sufficient to detect changes in central tendency and area under the APSD curve, which are key in vitro quality attributes for OIPs. Compared to stage groupings, this two-metric approach provides better intrinsic precision, in part due to having adequate mass and consequently better ability to detect changes in APSD and ISM, suggesting that this approach should be a preferred QC tool. Another advantage is the possibility to obtain these metrics from the abbreviated impactor measurements (AIM) rather than from full-resolution multistage impactors. Although the boundary is product specific, the testing could be accomplished with a basic AIM system which can meet the needs of most or all OIPs.

Product Quality Research Institute evaluation of cascade impactor profiles of pharmaceutical aerosols: Part 2—Evaluation of a method for determining equivalence

The purpose of this article is to present the thought process, methods, and interim results of a PQRI Working Group, which was charged with evaluating the chi-square ratio test as a potential method for determining in vitro equivalence of aerodynamic particle size distribution (APSD) profiles obtained from cascade impactor measurements. Because this test was designed with the intention of being used as a tool in regulatory review of drug applications, the capability of the test to detect differences in APSD profiles correctly and consistently was evaluated in a systematic way across a designed space of possible profiles. To establish a “base line,” properties of the test in the simplest case of pairs of identical profiles were studied. Next, the tests performance was studied with pairs of profiles, where some difference was simulated in a systematic way on a single deposition site using realistic product profiles. The results obtained in these studies, which are presented in detail here, suggest that the chi-square ratio test in itself is not sufficient to determine equivalence of particle size distributions. This article, therefore, introduces the proposal to combine the chi-square ratio test with a test for impactor-sized mass based on Population Bioequivalence and describes methods for evaluating discrimination capabilities of the combined test. The approaches and results described in this article elucidate some of the capabilities and limitations of the original chi-square ratio test and provide rationale for development of additional tests capable of comparing APSD profiles of pharmaceutical aerosols.

In Vitro Testing for Orally Inhaled Products: Developments in Science-Based Regulatory Approaches

This article is part of a series of reports from the “Orlando Inhalation Conference-Approaches in International Regulation” which was held in March 2014, and coorganized by the University of Florida and the International Pharmaceutical Aerosol Consortium on Regulation and Science (IPAC-RS). The goal of the conference was to foster the exchange of ideas and knowledge across the global scientific and regulatory community in order to identify and help move towards strategies for internationally harmonized, science-based regulatory approaches for the development and marketing approval of inhalation medicines, including innovator and second entry products. This article provides an integrated perspective of case studies and discussion related to in vitro testing of orally inhaled products, including in vitro-in vivo correlations and requirements for in vitro data and statistical analysis that support quality or bioequivalence for regulatory applications.

Pharmacokinetics of loratadine and pseudoephedrine following single and multiple doses of once- versus twice-daily combination tablet formulations in healthy adult males.

The pharmacokinetic profiles of single and multiple doses of loratadine, descarboethoxyloratadine (DCL) (the major active metabolite of loratadine), and pseudoephedrine were determined in a randomized, open-label, two-way crossover study in 24 healthy men. Subjects received a single dose (day 1) and multiple doses (days 3 to 10) of a once-daily (QD) formulation of loratadine 10 mg in an immediate-release coating and pseudoephedrine sulfate 240 mg in an extended-release core (CLAR-ITIN-D 24 HOUR tablets), and a twice-daily (BID) formulation of loratadine 5 mg in an immediate-release coating and pseudoephedrine sulfate 120 mg, with 60 mg in an immediate-release coating and 60 mg in the barrier-protected core (CLARITIN-D 12 HOUR tablets) in study sessions, each separated by a 10-day washout period. Both regimens were safe and well tolerated. On day 1, plasma loratadine, DCL, and pseudoephedrine concentrations were higher following the QD formulation than following the BID formulation, as expected. On day 10, loratadine and DCL maximum plasma concentration (Cmax) values were, on average, 87% and 35% higher, respectively, for the QD formulation than for the BID formulation; however, the values of the area under the plasma concentration-time curve from 0 to 24 hours (AUC0-24) for loratadine and DCL were equivalent (90% confidence interval [CI]: 83% to 110% for loratadine; 90% to 107% for DCL). On day 10, pseudoephedrine Cmax and AUC0-24 values were equivalent (90% CI for Cmax: 94% to 109%; for AUC: 91% to 106%) for the two formulations, and lower pseudoephedrine concentrations were observed from 16 to 24 hours with the QD formulation. Both loratadine/pseudoephedrine formulations produced equivalent loratadine and DCL AUC0-24 values and equivalent pseudoephedrine Cmax and AUC0-24 values following multiple dosing. The lower pseudoephedrine concentrations in the evening with the QD formulation may minimize the potential for insomnia in patients when compared with the BID formulation.

On the shelf life of pharmaceutical products.

This article proposes new terminology that distinguishes between different concepts involved in the discussion of the shelf life of pharmaceutical products. Such comprehensive and common language is currently lacking from various guidelines, which confuses implementation and impedes comparisons of different methodologies. The five new terms that are necessary for a coherent discussion of shelf life are: true shelf life, estimated shelf life, supported shelf life, maximum shelf life, and labeled shelf life. These concepts are already in use, but not named as such. The article discusses various levels of “product” on which different stakeholders tend to focus (e.g., a single-dosage unit, a batch, a production process, etc.). The article also highlights a key missing element in the discussion of shelf life—a Quality Statement, which defines the quality standard for all key stakeholders. Arguments are presented that for regulatory and statistical reasons the true product shelf life should be defined in terms of a suitably small quantile (e.g., fifth) of the distribution of batch shelf lives. The choice of quantile translates to an upper bound on the probability that a randomly selected batch will be nonconforming when tested at the storage time defined by the labeled shelf life. For this strategy, a random-batch model is required. This approach, unlike a fixed-batch model, allows estimation of both within- and between-batch variability, and allows inferences to be made about the entire production process. This work was conducted by the Stability Shelf Life Working Group of the Product Quality Research Institute.

A Two One-Sided Parametric Tolerance Interval Test for Control of Delivered Dose Uniformity. Part 1—Characterization of FDA Proposed Test

The FDA proposed a parametric tolerance interval (PTI) test at the October 2005 Advisory Committee meeting as a replacement of the attribute (counting) test for delivered dose uniformity (DDU), published in the 1998 draft guidance for metered dose inhalers (MDIs) and dry powder inhalers (DPIs) and the 2002 final guidance for inhalation sprays and intranasal products. This article (first in a series of three) focuses on the test named by the FDA “87.5% coverage.” Unlike a typical two-sided PTI test, which controls the proportion of the DDU distribution within a target interval (coverage), this test is comprised of two one-sided tests (TOST) designed to control the maximum amount of DDU values in either tail of the distribution above and below the target interval. Through simulations, this article characterizes the properties and performance of the proposed PTI-TOST under different scenarios. The results show that coverages of 99% or greater are needed for a batch to have acceptance probability 98% or greater with the test named by the FDA “87.5% coverage” (95% confidence level), while batches with 87.5% coverage have less than 1% probability of being accepted. The results also illustrate that with this PTI-TOST, the coverage requirement for a given acceptance probability increases as the batch mean deviates from target. The accompanying articles study the effects of changing test parameters and the test robustness to deviations from normality.