Pharmaceutical Nomenclature Issues and challenges Moheb M. Nasr, Ph.D. Acting Director Office of New Drug Chemistry (ONDC) OPS, CDER, FDA Advisory Committee.

Slides:

Advertisements

Similar presentations

Fast Dissolve Dosage Form

Advertisements

ICH Q4B Regulatory Acceptance of Analytical Procedures and/or Acceptance Criteria (RAAPAC) Overview and Update Robert H. King, Sr. Office of Pharmaceutical.

Topical Bioequivalence Update Robert Lionberger, Ph.D. Office of Generic Drugs.

Quality by Design for Topical Dosage Forms

1 Implementation of Quality by Design (QbD): Status, Challenges and Next Steps Moheb M. Nasr, Ph.D. Office of New Drug Quality Assessment (ONDQA), OPS,

Presented at the Advisory Committee for Pharmaceutical Science meeting on March 12, 2003 by Lucinda Buhse, Ph.D.

Integrating CMC Review & Inspection Industry Recommendations Joe Anisko April 24, 2003.

Rapid Microbiology Methods A Regulatory Viewpoint Bryan S. Riley, Ph.D. U.S. Food and Drug Administration Center for Drug Evaluation and Research Office.

Topical Dermatologic Dosage Forms and Vehicle Properties: Issues and Opportunities Jonathan Wilkin, M.D. Director, Division of Dermatologic and Dental.

Determine impurity level in relevant batches1

Development and Review Process of NDA, ANDA/AADA and OTC Dr. Basavaraj K. Nanjwade M. Pharm., Ph. D Associate Professor Department of Pharmaceutics KLE.

Special Topics in IND Regulation

Office of New Drug Chemistry, OPS, CDER, Food and Drug Administration Establishing Dissolution Specification Current CMC Practice Vibhakar Shah, Ph.D.

Dale P. Conner, Pharm.D. Division of Bioequivalence OGD, CDER, FDA

Proprietary Names and the Drug Approval Process John K. Jenkins, M.D., F.C.C.P. Director, Officer of New Drugs Center for Drug Evaluation and Research.

Individual Bioequivalence Lawrence J. Lesko, Ph.D. Director Office of Clinical Pharmacology and Biopharmaceutics Advisory Committee for Pharmaceutical.

ONDQA Perspective on Post Approval Changes Eric P. Duffy, PhD Director, Division of Post-Market Evaluation, ONDQA, CDER, FDA Public Meeting: Supplements.

Post approval changes- Variations Mercy Acquaye. Presentation Outline Introduction to Guidance Classification of changes Approval of changes Definitions.

How characterization of excipient physical and chemical properties helps build quality into drug product Dr Brian A Carlin FMC BioPolymer.

Ensuring Physical Stability of Pharmaceuticals: Can/should we improve our ability to identify and prevent physical changes? Ajaz S. Hussain, Ph.D. Deputy.

IPhVWP Polish Presidency, Warsaw October 6 th 2011 Almath Spooner Irish Medicines Board Monitoring the outcome of risk minimisation activities.

Achieving and Demonstrating “Quality-by-Design” with Respect to Drug Release/dissolution Performance for Conventional or Immediate Release Solid Oral Dosage.

1 Process to Address Specifications for Delivered Dose Uniformity of Inhaled and Nasal Drug Products Presented by Robert O’Neill, Ph.D. Chair ACPS Working.

Organizational Gaps in Reaching the “Desired State” Helen Winkle.

Nonclinical Studies Subcommittee Advisory Committee for Pharmaceutical Science CMC Issues for Screening INDs Eric B. Sheinin, Ph.D. Acting Deputy Director.

Establishing Drug release/Dissolution Specifications – QBD Approach Moheb M. Nasr, Ph.D. Office of New Drug Quality Assessment (ONDQA), OPS, CDER Advisory.

Ajaz S. Hussain, Ph.D. Deputy Director Office of Pharmaceutical Science, CDER, FDA ACPS Subcommittee on Manufacturing Science: Identification and Prioritization.

Ajaz S. Hussain, Ph.D. Office of Pharmaceutical Sciences CDER, FDA October 21, 2003 Welcome and Introduction to the Meeting.

PROPRIETARY NAME EVALUATION AT FDA Jerry Phillips, RPh Associate Director for Medication Error Prevention Office of Drug Safety December 4, 2003.

© 2011 Underwriters Laboratories Inc. All rights reserved. This document may not be reproduced or distributed without authorization. ASSET Safety Management.

Understanding Drug Labels

ACPS Meeting, October 19-20, 2004 BioINequivalence: Concept and Definition Lawrence X. Yu, Ph. D. Director for Science Office of Generic Drugs, OPS, CDER,

1 Advisory Committee for Pharmaceutical Science and Clinical Pharmacology July , 2008 Classification of Orally Disintegrating Tablets Frank O. Holcombe,

Highly Variable Drugs – Bioequivalence Issues: FDA Proposal Under Consideration Barbara M. Davit, J.D., Ph.D. Deputy Director, Division of Bioequivalence.

1 Regulatory Aspects of Pharmaceutical Excipients PQRI Workshop Nick Buhay Acting Director Division of Manufacturing and Product Quality Office of Compliance.

Waiver of In Vivo Bioequivalence Studies for Immediate Release Solid Oral Dosage Forms Based on a Biopharmaceutics Classification System Ajaz S. Hussain,

1 Medical Imaging & Technology Alliance MITA Perspective on Establishing a Public Database for Device Labeling & Photos CDRH Public Meeting April 7, 2011.

WHO Workshop on Prequalification of Medicines Programme, Abu Dhabi, October, 2010 Regulatory principles reflected in practice of WHO PQP Milan Smid,

PhRMA Perspective on FDA Final Report FDA Advisory Committee on Pharmaceutical Sciences October 20, 2004 G.P. Migliaccio, Pfizer Inc.

Risk-Based CMC Review - OGD Perspective Gary J. Buehler, R.Ph. Director Office of Generic Drugs July 21, 2004 Advisory Committee for Pharmaceutical Science.

Bioequivalence of Locally Acting Gastrointestinal Drugs: An Overview

Topical Dosage Form Classification/Nomenclature Questions Advisory Committee of Pharmaceutical Science Meeting March 12, 2003 Yuan-yuan Chiu, Ph.D. Director,

UPCOMING CHANGES TO IN-VITRO DIAGNOSTICS (IVDs) AND LABORATORY DEVELOPED TESTS (LDTs) REGULATIONS Moj Eram, PhD November 5, 2015.

Dermatopharmacokinetics (DPK)

1 Office of Pharmaceutical Science on Jon Clark FDA/CDER/OPS Associate Director for Policy Development.

General Aspects of Quality assessment of multisource interchangeable medicines Rutendo Kuwana Technical Officer, WHO, Geneva Training workshop: Assessment.

Rapid Response Team Nakissa Sadrieh, Ph.D. Associate Director for Research Policy and Implementation, OPS.

Using Product Development Information to Address the Bioequivalence Challenges of Highly-variable Drugs Lawrence X. Yu, Ph. D. Director for Science Office.

Introduction to the Meeting Introduction to the Meeting Advisory Committee for Pharmaceutical Sciences Clinical Pharmacology Subcommittee November 17-18,

ICH Quality Topics Update

FDA’s Advisory Committee for Pharmaceutical Science The Subcommittee on Process Analytical Technologies (PAT): Closing Remarks Ajaz S. Hussain, Ph.D. Deputy.

Bioequivalence Criteria Research Plan Stella G. Machado, Ph.D. Office of Biostatistics and the Replicate Design Technical Committee Advisory Committee.

Lawrence X. Yu, Ph.D. Director for Science Office of Generic Drugs, OPS, CDER, FDA ACPS Meeting, ACPS Meeting, Oct. 22, 2003 Office of Generic Drugs Research.

Use of Risk-based Approach for Regulating CMC Changes to Approved Applications FDA Public Meeting February 7, 2007.

FDA Advisory Committee for Pharmaceutical Science and Clinical Pharmacology July 22-23, 2008 Introduction and Update Helen N. Winkle Director, Office of.

Topic #2: Quality by Design and Pharmaceutical Equivalence Ajaz S. Hussain, Ph.D. Office of Pharmaceutical Science Center for Drug Evaluation and Research.

ICAJ/PAB - Improving Compliance with International Standards on Auditing Planning an audit of financial statements 19 July 2014.

USP: Water for Pharmaceutical Purposes NCSLI – Metrological Traceability in Pure Water Testing August 22, 2011 Antonio Hernandez-Cardoso Senior Scientific.

1 From Regulatory Intelligence to Compliance Debbie Henderson Head, Global Regulatory Policy EU Ring May 13, 2014.

Ajaz S. Hussain, Ph.D. Office of Pharmaceutical Sciences CDER, FDA October 21, 2003 Dose Content Uniformity: Parametric Tolerance Interval Approach.

© 2011 Underwriters Laboratories Inc. Conformity Assessment Best Practices and Advancing GRP in EAC: The Value of Public-Private Partnerships EAC Workshop.

Office of Pharmaceutical Science OPS Center for Drug Evaluation and Research CDER FDA Food and Drug Administration HHS Health and Human Services 1 Advisory.

EIAScreening6(Gajaseni, 2007)1 II. Scoping. EIAScreening6(Gajaseni, 2007)2 Scoping Definition: is a process of interaction between the interested public,

POST APPROVAL CHANGE MANAGEMENT PROTOCOLS IN THE EUROPEAN UNION

- Pharmaceutical Equivalence Study

Solid dosage forms Tablets

Michael Gross, Ph.D., RAC Vice-President Worldwide Compliance

Implementation of Quality by Design (QbD): Status, Challenges and Next Steps Moheb M. Nasr, Ph.D. Office of New Drug Quality Assessment (ONDQA), OPS, CDER.

Compounded Drugs and Lack of Premarket FDA-Approval

Understanding Drug Labels

Presentation transcript:

Pharmaceutical Nomenclature Issues and challenges Moheb M. Nasr, Ph.D. Acting Director Office of New Drug Chemistry (ONDC) OPS, CDER, FDA Advisory Committee for Pharmaceutical Sciences (ACPS) October 22, 2003

ACPS, October 22, Pharmaceutical Nomenclature Issues and challenges FDA Perspective Orally Disintegrating Tablets (ODT) Topical Dosage Form Classification - an Update Committee Discussions Dan Boring, R.Ph.,Ph.D. Frank Holcombe, Jr., Ph.D. Lucinda Buhse, Ph.D.

ACPS, October 22, Issues and challenges z Impact on regulatory decisions, marketing, drug development, and the public z Nomenclature development (scientific and regulatory challenges) y How to do it right the first time? y Is a new dosage form needed or is it just a minor modification in an existing dosage form that can be handled by labeling? y How to establish definitions and criteria for new dosage forms? y Do we need to have that many dosage forms?

ACPS, October 22, Issues and challenges z Coordination with different organizations and stakeholders z Definitions (descriptive and quantifiable attributes) z Refinement and/or replacement of older dosage forms z Pharmaceutical equivalence issues

ACPS, October 22, Questions for ACPS 1.What are the factors that the Agency should consider in determining (a) whether a new dosage form name is warranted and (b) how such a dosage form should be defined? 2. Is it reasonable or useful to include a quantifiable attribute when defining a dosage form or distinguishing between closely related dosage forms where appropriate? Can such an approach be viewed as too arbitrary in some cases and too rigid in other cases?

ACPS, October 22, Questions for ACPS 3. Is the proposed criterion, i.e., an in vitro disintegration time of less than 60 seconds, reasonable for defining an orally disintegrating tablet? 4. Has the update on topical dosage forms presented today addressed the questions/comments raised by the ACPS at the March 2003 meeting?

FDA Perspective on Dosage Form Nomenclature Dr. Dan Boring, R.Ph., Ph.D. Review Chemist; Labeling Expert ONDC, OPS

ACPS, October 22, Nomenclature of Pharmaceutical Dosage Forms z Issues and challenges y Scientific y Regulatory y Marketing y Legal y Healthcare provider y Patient

ACPS, October 22, What is an Established Name? z The FD&C Act states “drug” only z Drug substance and/or drug product? z At CDER, an established name for both drug substance and drug product z In general, an established name for a drug product is: [(drug substance) (release characteristic) (route of administration) (dosage form)] z Today’s focus is on dosage form

ACPS, October 22, Definition of a Pharmaceutical Drug Product z Drug Product is defined as a finished dosage form such as tablet, capsule or solution z What is a dosage form? z A dosage form could be defined as the physical form of a drug product at the point that it is introduced into the body, or, where final preparation is required before introduction into the body, the physical form of the drug product in the package that bears instructions for final preparation (private communication) z Dosage forms are non-proprietary

ACPS, October 22, Stakeholders z Innovators y Research, development, marketing, legal z FDA y OND, ONDC, ODS, COS, NSC z USP y Expert Comm on Nomenclature and Labeling z Healthcare providers and patients y Not direct participants

ACPS, October 22, FDA Nomenclature Issues z New drugs y No USP monograph exists y Is a new name necessary? y Is it nomenclature or labeling? z Generic drugs y Compliance with USP monograph? y Is a compendial name being developed? y Will name allow proper product selection for substitution? y Name definition should not allow generic manufacturers to substitute a new dosage form for a RLD z OTC drugs y Product selection by patient

ACPS, October 22, Nomenclature Assessment Factors z Name must clearly identify the product z Name promotes accurate recognition without risk of medication errors z Name meets database, indexing and listing needs z Name consistent with precedents (i.e., systems) z Name should not provide an advantage through exclusive proprietary technology

ACPS, October 22, Challenges z Will a new name serve long-term needs? z Is an older term still accurate? z Is a developing new term appropriate? z Can objective standards be developed to define a new dosage form? z How should name development be coordinated (innovator, FDA, USP)? z Global harmonization? z Implementation?

ACPS, October 22, New Dosage Forms and Drug Delivery Systems z Orally disintegrating tablets z Tablets for suspension z Liposomes z Microspheres z Films? z Iontophoretic systems?

Defining Orally Disintegrating Tablets Frank Holcombe, Jr. Ph.D. Associate Director for Chemistry Office of Generic Drugs, OPS

ACPS, October 22, Current Definitions of ODT z FDA definition “A solid dosage form containing medicinal substances which disintegrates rapidly, usually within a matter of seconds, when placed upon the tongue” z USP Stimuli proposal “A solid oral dosage form that disintegrates rapidly in the mouth”

ACPS, October 22, Desired Characteristics and Benefits of ODT z Oral disintegration z Rapid disintegration z No chewing or liquids necessary z Provides improved route of administration and increased compliance for certain patient populations

ACPS, October 22, Issues Concerning ODT z Limited experience – similarity of all initial products z Expansion in product variations due to changes in y Technologies y Formulations y Additional drug products y Target market population

ACPS, October 22, Issues Concerning ODT z Format of suitable definition y Should address both the desired characteristics and control of extent of product range y Must address: x Method of administration x Objective criteria (limits for disintegration time)

ACPS, October 22, Issues Concerning ODT z Disintegration evaluation y In-vivo testing (subjective, objective) y In-vitro testing (objective) x Variety of methods x Results may be method dependent

ACPS, October 22, In-vitro Testing Methods z Applicant in-house methods (proprietary) z FDA laboratory method (static) z USP Chapter Disintegration (dynamic)

ACPS, October 22, In-vitro Testing Results z Static: 1-78 sec z Dynamic: 1-69 sec z Most products in 1 to 30 sec range z No data correlating in-vivo and in-vitro disintegration times

ACPS, October 22, In-vitro Testing Results

ACPS, October 22, FDA Proposal z A revision of the ODT definition to include in-vitro disintegration method and acceptance criteria (USP, < 60 sec) Objective: To provide criteria (based on original expectations) for distinguishing orally disintegrating tablets from other tablet forms

Topical Dosage Form Classification – an Update Lucinda Buhse, Ph.D. Acting Director Division of Pharmaceutical Analysis Office of Testing and Research, OPS

ACPS, October 22,

ACPS, October 22, Advisory Committee Input z No need to include appearance and feel (e.g., greasy, non- greasy) z Definitions should be based on the vehicle z Ointments and suspensions could be classified as lotions (an overused term) z Do not make cream a default definition and do not separate creams using hydrophilic-vs-hydrophobic z Use detailed rheological evaluation (e.g., yield values) to distinguish gels and/or lotions from creams z Reconsider criteria used to classify gels

ACPS, October 22, CDER Activities z Evaluation of ACPS input z Consultations with Dr. Arthur Kibbe z Analysis of liquid/semi-solid borderline products based on more extensive rheological evaluation z Examination of optical properties and compositions of gels

ACPS, October 22, Rheological Evaluation Sample Yield Value (D/cm 2 ) Conforms to container Does not conform to container

ACPS, October 22,

ACPS, October 22, Questions for ACPS 1.What are the factors that the Agency should consider in determining (a) whether a new dosage form name is warranted and (b) how such a dosage form should be defined? 2. Is it reasonable or useful to include a quantifiable attribute when defining a dosage form or distinguishing between closely related dosage forms where appropriate? Can such an approach be viewed as too arbitrary in some cases and too rigid in other cases?

ACPS, October 22, Questions for ACPS 3. Is the proposed criterion, i.e., an in vitro disintegration time of less than 60 seconds, reasonable for defining an orally disintegrating tablet? 4. Has the update on topical dosage forms presented today addressed the questions/comments raised by the ACPS at the March 2003 meeting?