Abstract
Abstract
Since the early 1960s, there has been a continuous evolution in scientific understanding regarding bioequivalence (BE) of oral dosage forms, intermittently punctuated by some breakthrough research findings and conceptual advances. The accumulated knowledge from this body of research has been translated into a sophisticated risk management framework of regulations and guidelines supported by an extensive set of tools and decision rules. This has permitted us to arrive at a state that now allows, in the majority of cases, not only the unrestricted substitution of a generic product for the innovator version, but also unquestioned substitution between different generic manufacturers. This framework has been successfully extended or adapted to go beyond oral dosage forms to include, for example, topical semisolid applications and nasal sprays. In the case of orally inhaled locally acting drug products (OIP), a similar level of success has yet to be realized. For OIP's, the risk management toolbox is incompletely outfitted due to missing science, knowledge, and experience in some key areas. This article presents a gap analysis of the situation highlighting unresolved residual risks. Assessment of the residual risks by US and EU medicines authorities has interestingly led to different regulatory positions with respect to BE for this class of drug products in these two regions. A parallel comparison with the history for BE of oral dosage forms shows that resolution for inhaled products will come eventually with the final outcome and timeframe, depending as much on science as it does on economics and the degree to which legislators intervene.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.