Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online 2015-06
Considerations for Designing In Vitro Bioequivalence (IVBE) Studies for Pressurized Metered Dose Inhalers (pMDIs) with Spacer or Valved Holding Chamber (S/VHC) Add-on Devices
The choice of analytical test methods and associated statistical considerations are considered for the laboratory testing of pressurized metered dose inhaler–spacer/valved holding chamber (pMDI-S/VHC) combinations for in vitro bioequivalence (IVBE).
Methods:
Four scenarios are presented for comparing TEST (“second entry” or “generic”) versus REF (“innovator”): (1) innovator and second entry product pMDI alone without any S/VHC (baseline comparison); (2) innovator and second entry pMDI product with the same S/VHC; (3) innovator pMDI product with existing S/VHC and second entry product with a different S/VHC; and (4) introduction of a second, different S/VHC to be used with a given innovator pMDI product. The following aspects should be reviewed in the preparatory stage of designing experiments to establish IVBE: (a) the inclusion of delayed inhalation; (b) the utilization of age-appropriate flow rates; and (c) the use of anatomically appropriate face models for evaluation of devices with a facemask. Statistical considerations that fit in with such experimental methods include: selection of pMDI batches and S/VHC lots; choice of sample size and acceptance criteria; bracketing or worst case approaches; and balanced/paired designs. A stepwise approach for selection of impactor stage groupings is presented, and an approach to determine realistic acceptance criteria based on REF product characteristics is suggested.
Results:
An example of an efficient statistical design of experiment is provided for each scenario, together with alternate approaches for calculation of confidence intervals for the mean TEST/REF relationship. It is important to appreciate that the optimal design depends on balancing numerous considerations and will thus likely differ from case to case; hence, the designs presented here should be seen as illustrations rather than the only option available. More effective approaches may be found that suit a particular case at hand.
Conclusions:
The information provided will assist in developing correlations in support of IVBE for these add-on devices.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
EvansC, CipollaD, ChesworthT, AgurellE, AhrensR, ConnerD, DissanayakeS, DolovichM, DoubW, FuglsangA, García ArietaA, GoldenM, HermannR, HochhausG, HolmesS, LaffertyP, LyapustinaS, NairP, O'ConnorD, ParkinsD, PetersonI, ReisnerC, SandellD, SinghGJ, WedaM, and WatsonP: Equivalence considerations for orally inhaled products for local action—ISAM/IPAC-RS European workshop report. J Aerosol Med Pulm Drug Deliv., 2012; 25:117–139.
2.
MitchellJP, and DolovichMB: Clinically relevant test methods to establish in vitro equivalence for spacers and valved holding chambers used with pressurized metered dose inhalers (pMDIs). J Aerosol Med Pulm Drug Deliv., 2012; 25:217–242.
3.
BeckerA, LemièreC, BérubéD, BouletL-P, DucharmeFM, FitzGeraldM, and KovesiT: Summary of recommendations from the Canadian Asthma Consensus Guidelines, 2003 and Canadian Pediatric Asthma Consensus Guidelines, 2003 (updated to December 2004). CMAJ., 2005; 173(6 suppl):S1–S56. Available at: www.cmaj.ca/content/173/6_suppl/S3.full.pdf. Accessed March28, 2014.
4.
Global Initiative for Asthma (GINA): Global Strategy for Asthma Management and Prevention. December2012. Available at: www.ginasthma.org. Accessed March28, 2014.
5.
Global Strategy for Diagnosis, Management, and Prevention of Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease (COPD). January2014. Available at: www.goldcopd.com. Accessed March28, 2014.
6.
British Thoracic Society/Scottish Intercollegiate Guidance Network (SIGN): British guideline on the management of asthma. Publication 101. January2012. Available at: www.sign.ac.uk/pdf/sign101.pdf. Accessed March28, 2014.
7.
UK National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE): Guidance on the use of inhaler systems (devices) in children under the age of 5 with chronic asthma. Technology appraisal guidance No. 10. 2000. Available at: www.nice.org.uk/nicemedia/live/11400/32073/32073.pdf. Accessed March28, 2014.
8.
UK National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE): Inhaler devices for routine treatment of chronic asthma in older children (aged 5–15 years). Technology appraisal guidance No. 38. 2002. Available at: www.nice.org.uk/nicemedia/live/11450/32338/32338.pdf. Accessed March28, 2014.
9.
BisgaardH, AnhøjJ, and WildhaberJH: Spacer devices. In: BisgaardH, O'CallaghanC, and SmaldoneGC, (eds). Drug Delivery to the Lung. Marcel Dekker, New York, NY; pp. 389–420, 2000.
10.
CorrD, DolovichM, McCormackD, RuffinR, ObminskiG, and NewhouseM: Design and characteristics of a portable breath actuated, particle size selective medical aerosol inhaler. J Aerosol Sci., 1982; 13:1–7.
11.
MitchellJP, TougasT, ChristopherJD, LyapustinaS, BauerR, and GlaabV: Challenges of sizing inhaler aerosols: bringing the methods into the 21st century. In: DalbyRN, ByronPR, PeartJ, SumanJD, TrainiD, and YoungPM, (eds). Respiratory Drug Delivery—Europe 2013. Davis Healthcare International Publishing, River Grove, IL; pp. 363–367, 2013.
12.
European Medicines Agency (EMA): Requirements for clinical documentation for orally inhaled products (OIP) including the requirements for demonstration of therapeutic equivalence between two inhaled products for use in the treatment of asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) in adults and for use in the treatment of asthma in children and adolescents. London, UK. CPMP/EWP/4151/00 Rev. 1, 2009. Available at: www.ema.europa.eu/docs/en_GB/document_library/Scientific_guideline/2009/09/WC500003504.pdf. Accessed March28, 2014.
13.
DissanayakeS: Application of the EU guidelines for pharmacokinetic studies of locally acting orally inhaled drug products. In: DalbyRN, ByronPR, PeartJ, SumanJD, FarrSJ, and YoungPM, (eds). Respiratory Drug Delivery 2010. Davis Healthcare International Publishing, River Grove, IL; pp. 293–304, 2010.
14.
Health Canada: Release of draft guidance document: Submission requirements for subsequent market entry inhaled corticosteroid products for use in the treatment of asthma. Document 07-118017-24, Ottawa, Canada. Available at: www.hc-sc.gc.ca/dhp-mps/prodpharma/applic-demande/guide-ld/inhal_corticost-eng.php. Accessed March28, 2014.
15.
United States Food and Drug Administration: Guidance for industry: Statistical approaches to establishing bioequivalence. Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER), Rockville, MD; January2001. Available at: www.fda.gov/downloads/Drugs/Guidances/ucm070244.pdf. Accessed March28, 2014.
16.
United States Pharmacopeial Convention: Chapter 1010. Analytical data: Interpretation and Treatment. USP36/NF31. United States Pharmacopeial Convention, Rockville, MD; 2013.
17.
ChowS-C, and LiuJ-P: Design and Analysis of Bioavailability and Bioequivalence Studies, 3rd edition. Chapman and Hall, NY; 2009.
18.
ChowS-C, ShaoJ, and WangH: Statistical tests for population bioequivalence. Stat Sin., 2003; 13:539–554.
19.
FradetteC, LavigneJ, WatersJ, and DucharmeMP: The utility of the population approach applied to bioequivalence in patients: comparison of 2 formulations of cyclosporine. Ther Drug Monit., 2005; 27:592–600.
20.
United States Food and Drug Administration: Draft guidance on budesonide (suspension/inhalation). Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER), Rockville, MD; September2012. Available at: www.fda.gov/downloads/Drugs/…/Guidances/UCM319977.pdf. Accessed March28, 2014.
DolovichMB, and MitchellJP: Canadian Standards Association standard CAN/CSA/Z264.1-02:2002: a new voluntary standard for spacers and holding chambers used with pressurized metered-dose inhalers. Can Respir J., 2004; 11:489–495.
24.
United States Pharmacopeial Convention: Chapter 601: Aerosols, nasal sprays, metered-dose inhalers and dry powder inhalers. Rockville, MD; USP 36-NF 31 2013.
25.
European Directorate for Quality in Medicines and HealthCare (EDQM): European Pharmacopeia, Monograph 2.9.18: Preparations for inhalation: aerodynamic assessment of fine particles. Council of Europe, Strasbourg, France; 8th edition, pp. 309–321, 2013.
26.
ShahSA, BerlinskiA, and RubinBK: Force-dependent static dead space of face masks used with holding chambers. Respir Care., 2006; 51:140–144.
27.
MitchellJP: Appropriate face models for evaluating drug delivery in the laboratory: the current situation and prospects for future advances. J Aerosol Med., 2008; 21:1–15.
28.
MitchellJP, and NagelMW: Improved laboratory test methods for orally inhaled products. Ther Deliv., 2013; 4:1003–1026.
29.
MarpleVA, and LiuBYH: Characteristics of laminar jet impactors. Environ Sci Technol., 1974; 8:648–654.
30.
OlssonB, BorgströmL, LundbäckH, and SvenssonM: Validation of a general in vitro approach for prediction of total lung deposition in healthy adults. J Aerosol Med Pulm Drug Deliv., 2013; 26:355–369.
31.
MillerNC: Apparatus and process for aerosol size measurement at varying gas flow rates. US Patent 6,435,004-B1 (2002).
32.
United States Pharmacopeial Convention: Chapter 1602. Spacers and valved holding chambers used with inhalation aerosols. In-Process Revision. Pharmacopeial Forum. 2014:40(1). Available at: www.usp.org/usp-nf/pharmacopeial-forum.
McRobbieDW, PritchardS, and QuestRA: Studies of the human oropharyngeal airspaces using magnetic resonance imaging. I. Validation of a three-dimensional MRI method for producing ex vivo virtual and physical casts of the oropharyngeal airways during inspiration. J Aerosol Med., 2003; 16:401–415.
35.
PritchardSE, and McRobbieDW: Studies of the human oropharyngeal airspaces using magnetic resonance imaging. II. The use of three-dimensional gated MRI to determine the influence of mouthpiece diameter and resistance of inhalation devices on the oropharyngeal airspace geometry. J Aerosol Med., 2004; 17:310–324.
36.
McRobbieDW, and PritchardSE: Studies of the human oropharyngeal airspaces using magnetic resonance imaging. III. The effects of device resistance with forced maneuver and tidal breathing on upper airway geometry. J Aerosol Med., 2005; 18:325–336.
37.
BurnellPK, AskingL, BorgströmL, NicholsSC, OlssonB, PrimeD, and ShrubbI: Studies of the human oropharyngeal airspaces using magnetic resonance imaging IV—the oropharyngeal retention effect for four inhalation delivery systems. J Aerosol Med., 2007; 20:269–281.
38.
ByronPR, WeiX, DelvadiaRR, and LongestPW: Standardizing in vitro test methods to support aerosol drug evaluation in the clinic. In: DalbyRN, ByronPR, PeartJ, SumanJD, TrainiD, and YoungPM, (eds). Respiratory Drug Delivery Europe 2013. Davis Healthcare International Publishing, River Grove, IL; pp. 85–92, 2013.
39.
JavaheriE, GolshahiL, and FinlayWH: An idealized geometry that mimics average infant nasal airway deposition. J Aerosol Sci., 2013; 55:137–148.
40.
GolshahiL, and FinlayWH: An idealized child throat that mimics average pediatric oropharyngeal deposition. Aerosol Sci Technol., 2012; 46(5):i–iv.
41.
ZhangY, and FinlayWH: Experimental measurements of particle deposition in three proximal lung bifurcation models with an idealized mouth–throat. J Aerosol Med., 2005; 18:460–473.
BarryPW, and O'CallaghanC: The effect of delay, multiple actuations and spacer static charge on the in vitro delivery of budesonide from the Nebuhaler. Br J Clin Pharmacol., 1995; 40:76–78.
44.
MitchellJP, NagelMW, MacKayHA, AvvakoumovaVA, and MalpassJ: Developing a “universal” valved holding chamber (VHC) platform with added patient benefits whilst maintaining consistent in vitro performance. In: DalbyRN, ByronPR, PeartJ, SumanJD, and YoungPM, (eds). Respiratory Drug Delivery Europe 2009. Davis Healthcare International Publishing, River Grove, IL; pp. 383–386, 2009.
45.
MitchellJP, and NagelMW: Cascade impactors for the size characterization of aerosols from medical inhalers: their use and limitations. J Aerosol Med., 2003; 16:341–377.
46.
DolovichMB: In my opinion: interview with the expert. Pediatr Asthma Allergy Immunol., 2004; 17:292–300.
OlsonBA, MarpleVA, MitchellJP, and NagelMW: Development and calibration of a low-flow version of the Marple-Miller impactor. Aerosol Sci Technol., 1998; 29:307–314.
49.
MitchellJP, and NagelMW: Valved holding chambers (VHCs) for use with pressurized metered-dose inhalers (pMDIs): a review of causes of inconsistent medication delivery. Prim Care Respir J., 2007; 16:207–214.
50.
PeartJ, OrbanJC, McGlynnP, RedmonMP, SargeantCM, and ByronPR: MDI electrostatics: valve and formulation interactions that really make a difference. In: DalbyRN, ByronPR, PeartJ, and FarrSJ, (eds). Respiratory Drug Delivery—VIII. Davis Horwood International Publishing, Raleigh, NC; pp. 223–230, 2002.
51.
KulphaisalP, PeartJ, and ByronP: Influence of water on electrical properties in hydrofluoroalkane based metered dose inhalers. In: DalbyRN, ByronPR, PeartJ, and FarrSJ, (eds). Respiratory Drug Delivery—VIII. Davis Horwood International Publishing, Raleigh, NC; pp. 783–785, 2002.
52.
KwokPCL, GloverW, and ChanH-K: Electrostatic charge characteristics of aerosols produced from metered dose inhalers. J Pharm Sci., 2005; 94:2789–2799.
53.
KwokPC, and ChanH-K: Electrostatic charges of metered dose inhaler aerosols sampled from plastic spacers. In: DalbyRN, ByronPR, PeartJ, SumanJD, and FarrSJ, (eds). Respiratory Drug Delivery—X. Davis Horwood International Publishing, River Grove, IL; pp. 901–903, 2006.
54.
PeartJ, KulphaisalP, and OrbanJC: Relevance of electrostatics in respiratory drug delivery. Business briefing: Pharmagenerics. 2003. Available at: www.touchbriefings.com/pdf/890/PT04_peart.pdf. Accesss August14, 2013.
55.
MitchellJP, CoppoloDP, and NagelMW: Electrostatics and inhaled medications: influence on delivery via pressurized metered-dose inhalers and add-on devices. Respir Care., 2007; 52:283–300.
56.
PiérartF, WildhaberJH, VranckenI, DevadasonSG, and Le SouëfPN: Washing plastic spacers in household detergent reduces electrostatic charge and greatly improves delivery. Eur Respir J., 1999; 13:673–678.
57.
United States Food and Drug Administration: Draft Guidance for Industry: Metered dose inhaler (MDI) and dry powder inhaler (DPI) drug products: chemistry, manufacturing, and controls documentation. Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER), Rockville, MD; October1998. Available at: www.fda.gov/downloads/Drugs/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/Guidances/ucm070573.pdf. Accessed March28, 2014.
LeachCT, and ColiceGL: A pilot study to assess lung deposition of HFA-beclometasone and CFC-beclometasone from a pressurized metered dose inhaler with and without add-on spacers and using varying breathhold times. J Aerosol Med Pulm Drug Deliv., 2010; 23:355–361.
61.
CrippsA, RiebeM, SchulzeM, and WoodhouseR: Pharmaceutical transition to non-CFC pressurized metered dose inhalers. Respir Med., 2000; 94(SB):3–9.
62.
HindsWC: Aerosol Technology: Properties, Behavior, and Measurement of Airborne Particles, 2nd edition. John Wiley & Sons Inc., New York; 1998.
63.
SteinSW: Aiming for a moving target: challenges with impactor measurements of MDI aerosols. Int J Pharm., 2008; 355:53–61.
64.
BonamM, ChristopherD, CipollaD, DonovanB, GoodwinD, HolmesS, LyapustinaS, MitchellJ, NicholsS, PettersonG, QualeC, RaoN, SinghD, TougasT, Van OortM, WaltherB, and WykaB: Minimizing variability of cascade impaction measurements in inhalers and nebulizers. AAPS PharmSciTech., 2008; 9:404–413.
65.
MitchellJ, BauerR, LyapustinaS, TougasT, and GlaabV: Non-impactor-based methods for sizing of aerosols emitted from orally inhaled and nasal drug products (OINDPs). AAPS PharmSciTech., 2011; 12:965–988.
66.
ByronPR, CummingsRH, NicholsSC, PoochikianG, SmurthwaiteMJ, SteinSW, and TrumanKG: Selection and validation of cascade impactor methods. In: DalbyRN, ByronPR, PeartJ, SumanJD, and FarrSJ, (eds). Respiratory Drug Delivery—IX. Davis Horwood International Publishing, Raleigh, NC; pp. 169–178, 2004.
67.
TougasTP, ChristopherD, MitchellJ, LyapustinaS, VanOortM, BauerR, and GlaabV: Product lifecycle approach to cascade impaction measurements. AAPS PharmSciTech., 2011; 12:312–322.
JohalB, HowaldM, FischerM, MarshallJ, and VenthoyeG: Fine particle profile of fluticasone propionate/formoterol fumarate versus other combination products: the DIFFUSE study. Comb Prod Ther., 2013; 3:39–51.
70.
SandellD: A real case comparison of average and population bioequivalence for evaluation of APSD data. Proc. IPAC-RS/University of Florida Inhalation Conference, Orlando, FL; March2014. Available at: www.ipacrs.org. Accessed March28, 2014.
71.
MitchellJP, and TougasTP: The AIM and EDA concepts: why they are needed and how they fit together. In: TougasTP, MitchellJP, and LyapustinaSA, (eds). Good Cascade Impactor Practices, AIM and EDA for Orally Inhaled Products. Springer, New York; pp. 119–134, 2013.
72.
International Society for Aerosols in Medicine (ISAM): Enhancing accordance between outcomes of laboratory and clinical testing of orally inhaled products. Pre-Congress Symposium. 2013. Slides available for members at: isam.org/members-login/members-area.html. Accessed September 25, 2013. Overview of symposium: Inhalation., 2013; 7(6):18–22.
73.
PurewalTS: Test methods for inhalers to check performance under normal use and unintentional misuse conditions. Pharmeuropa., 2002; 14:470–474.
74.
Esposito-FestenJE, AtesB, Van VlietFLM, VerbraakAFM, de JongsteJC, and TiddensHAWM: Effect of a facemask leak on aerosol delivery from a pMDI-spacer system. J Aerosol Med., 2004; 17:1–6.
75.
AdamsW, ChristopherD, LeeD, MorganB, PanZ, SinghG, TsongY, and LyapustinaS: Product Quality Research Institute evaluation of cascade impactor profiles of pharmaceutical aerosols. Part 1: Background for a statistical method. AAPS PharmSciTech., 2007; 8(1):E32–E37.
76.
ChristopherD, AdamsW, LeeD, MorganB, PanZ, SinghG, TsongY, and LyapustinaS: Product Quality Research Institute evaluation of cascade impactor profiles of pharmaceutical aerosols. Part 2: Evaluation of a method for determining equivalence. AAPS PharmSciTech., 2007; 8(1):E39–E48.
77.
ChristopherD, AdamsW, AmannA, BerthaC, ByronPR, DoubW, DunbarC, HauckW, LyapustinaS, MitchellJP, MorganB, NicholsS, PanZ, SinghGJP, TougasT, TsongY, WolffR, and WykaB: Product Quality Research Institute evaluation of cascade impactor profiles of pharmaceutical aerosols. Part 3: Final report on a statistical procedure for determining equivalence. AAPS PharmSciTech., 2007; 8(4):E90.
78.
United States Food and Drug Administration: Draft Guidance for Industry: Bioavailability and bioequivalence studies for nasal aerosols and nasal sprays for local action. Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER), Rockville, MD; June1999. Available at: www.fda.gov/downloads/Drugs/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/Guidances/ucm070111.pdf. Accessed July13, 2014.
79.
WeberB, HochhausG, AdamsW, LionbergerR, LiB, TsongY, and LeeSL: A stability analysis of a modified version of the chi-square ratio statistic: implications for equivalence testing of aerodynamic particle size distribution. AAPS J., 2013; 15:1–9.
80.
NewmanSP, and ChanHK: In vitro/in vivo comparisons in pulmonary drug delivery. J Aerosol Med., 2007; 20:1–8.
81.
Apiou-SbirleaG, NewmanS, FlemingJ, SiekmeierR, EhrmannS, ScheuchG, HochhausG, and HickeyA: Bioequivalence of inhaled drugs: fundamentals, challenges and perspectives. Ther Deliv., 2013; 4:343–367.
82.
DunbarC, and MitchellJ: Analysis of cascade impaction mass distributions. J Aerosol Med., 2005; 18:439–451.
83.
Annals of the International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP): Human Respiratory Tract Model for Radiological Protection. Pergamon Press (Elsevier Science), Tarrytown, NY; 1994.
84.
MontgomeryDC: Design and Analysis of Experiments. Wiley, New York; 1976.
85.
ProschanMA, and WaclawiwMA: Practical guidelines for multiplicity adjustment in clinical trials. Control Clin Trials., 2000; 21:527–539.
TukeyJW: Some thoughts on clinical trials, especially problems of multiplicity. Science., 1977; 198:679–684.
88.
CummingsRH, and RiebeM: Analytical development and testing. In: PurewalTS, and GrantDJW, (eds). Metered Dose Inhaler Technology. Interpharm Press, Buffalo Grove, IL; pp. 147–185, 1998.
89.
AhrensR, LuxC, BahlT, and HanS: Choosing the metered dose inhaler spacer or holding chamber that matches the patient's need: evidence that specific drug being delivered is an important consideration. J Allergy Clin Immunol., 1995; 96:288–294.
90.
ShapiroSS, and WilkMB: An analysis of variance test for normality (complete samples). Biometrika., 1965; 52:591–611.
91.
BuonaccorsiJP: Fieller's theorem. In: El-ShaarwariAH, and PiegorschWW, (eds). Encyclopedia of Environmentrics. John Wiley & Sons, Chichester, UK; volume 2, pp. 773–775, 2002.
