Open Flow Microperfusion as a Dermal Pharmacokinetic Approach to Evaluate Topical Bioequivalence

Manfred Bodenlenz, Katrin I Tiffner, Reingard Raml, Thomas Augustin, Christian Dragatin, Thomas Birngruber, Denise Schimek, Gerd Schwagerle, Thomas R Pieber, Sam G Raney, Isadore Kanfer, Frank Sinner, Manfred Bodenlenz, Katrin I Tiffner, Reingard Raml, Thomas Augustin, Christian Dragatin, Thomas Birngruber, Denise Schimek, Gerd Schwagerle, Thomas R Pieber, Sam G Raney, Isadore Kanfer, Frank Sinner

Abstract

Background: The availability of generic topical dermatological drug products is constrained by the limited methods established to assess topical bioequivalence (BE). A novel cutaneous pharmacokinetic approach, dermal open-flow microperfusion (dOFM), can continuously assess the rate and extent to which a topical drug becomes available in the dermis, to compare in vivo dermal bioavailability (BA) and support BE evaluations for topical products.

Objective: To evaluate whether dOFM is an accurate, sensitive, and reproducible in vivo method to characterize the intradermal BA of acyclovir from 5 % acyclovir creams, comparing a reference (R) product either to itself or to a different test (T) product.

Methods: In a single-center clinical study, R or T products were applied to six randomized treatment sites on the skin of 20 healthy human subjects. Two dOFM probes were inserted in each treatment site to monitor the intradermal acyclovir concentration for 36 h. Comparative BA (of R vs. R and T vs. R) was evaluated based on conventional BE criteria for pharmacokinetic endpoints (area under the curve and maximum dermal concentration) where the 90 % confidence interval of the geometric mean ratio between the T and R falls within 0.80-1.25.

Results: The positive control products (R vs. R) were accurately and reproducibly confirmed to be bioequivalent, while the negative control products (T vs. R) were sensitively discriminated not to be bioequivalent.

Conclusions: dOFM accurately, sensitively, and reproducibly characterized the dermal BA in a manner that can support BE evaluations for topical acyclovir 5 % creams in a study with n = 40 (20 subjects in this study).

Conflict of interest statement

Compliance with Ethical Standards Funding Funding for this project was made possible, in part, by the FDA through research award FD004946. The views expressed in this publication do not reflect the official policies of the FDA, or the Department of Health and Human Services; nor does any mention of trade names, commercial practices, or organization imply endorsement by the United States Government. Conflict of interest MB, KIT, RR, BT, TA, CD, TB, SK, DS, TRP, and FS are employees of Joanneum Research holding patents on OFM devices. SGR is an employee of US FDA. GS and IK declare that there are no conflicts of interest. Ethics, informed consent, research involving human participants The study was conducted with the full informed consent of all participating subjects, under the authority of the Ethical Committee of the Medical University of Graz, the Austrian health authority AGES, and the FDA’s Research Involving Human Subjects Committee (RIHSC) and was performed in accordance with Good Clinical Practice and the ethical standards laid down in the 1964 Declaration of Helsinki and its later amendments. The study has been registered in the European Clinical Trials Register (EudraCT No. 2013-005062-19) and at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT02711267).

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Schematic of dermal open flow microperfusion
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Scheme (a) and photograph (b) of the duplicate test triad for comparative bioavailability assessment. Two treatment sites per test triad were dosed with the reference product (R1: central, R2: non-central) and one treatment site was dosed with the test product (T)
Fig. 3
Fig. 3
Dermal open flow microperfusion (dOFM) acyclovir concentration profiles for the test product (T) site and the two reference (R1 and R2) sites (mean ± standard error of the mean, n = 40 test triads in 20 subjects). Acyclovir was analyzed from one pre-dose sample (spanning −1 to 0 h) and nine pooled post-dose samples (spanning 0–4, 4–8 … 32–36 h). The post-dose concentrations are plotted at the mid-point of the time intervals (2, 6 … 34 h)

References

    1. Dunne S, Shannon B, Dunne C, Cullen W. A review of the differences and similarities between generic drugs and their originator counterparts, including economic benefits associated with usage of generic medicines, using Ireland as a case study. BMC Pharmacol Toxicol. 2013;14(1):1. doi: 10.1186/2050-6511-14-1.
    1. FDA . Guidance for industry: statistical approaches to establishing bioequivalence. Rockville: Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, FDA; 2001.
    1. Schuirmann DJ. A comparison of the two one-sided tests procedure and the power approach for assessing the equivalence of average bioavailability. J Pharmacokinet Biopharm. 1987;15(6):657–680. doi: 10.1007/BF01068419.
    1. FDA . Guidance for industry: topical dermatological corticosteroids: in vivo bioequivalence, division of bioequivalence. Rockville: Center for Drug Evaluation and Research. Food and Drug Administration, FDA; 1995.
    1. Kanfer I. Methods for the assessment of bioequivalence of topical dosage forms: correlations, optimization strategies and innovative approaches. In: Jenner J, Shah VP, Maibach HI, editors. Topical drug bioavailability, bioequivalence and penetration. 2. New York: Springer Science; 2015.
    1. Lionberger RA. FDA critical path initiatives: opportunities for generic drug development. AAPS J. 2008;10(1):103–109. doi: 10.1208/s12248-008-9010-2.
    1. Shah VP, Flynn GL, Yacobi A, et al. Bioequivalence of topical dermatological dosage forms: methods of evaluation of bioequivalence. AAPS/FDA workshop on bioequivalence of topical dermatological dosage forms: methods of evaluating bioequivalence. Skin Pharmacol Appl Skin Physiol. 1998;11(2):117–124. doi: 10.1159/000029817.
    1. Braddy AC, Davit BM, Stier EM, Conner DP. Survey of international regulatory bioequivalence recommendations for approval of generic topical dermatological drug products. AAPS J. 2015;17(1):121–133. doi: 10.1208/s12248-014-9679-3.
    1. Chang R-K, Raw A, Lionberger R, Yu L. Generic development of topical dermatologic products: formulation development, process development, and testing of topical dermatologic products. AAPS J. 2013;15(1):41–52. doi: 10.1208/s12248-012-9411-0.
    1. Kanfer I, Tettey-Amlalo RNO, Au WL, Hughes-Formella B. Assessment of topical dosage forms intended for local or regional activity. In: Shargel L, Kanfer I, editors. Generic drug product development: specialty drug products. New York and London: Informa Healthcare; 2010.
    1. Raney SG, Franz TJ, Lehman PA, et al. Pharmacokinetics-based approaches for bioequivalence evaluation of topical dermatological drug products. Clin Pharmacokinet. 2015;54(11):1095–1106. doi: 10.1007/s40262-015-0292-0.
    1. Au WL, Skinner M, Kanfer I. Comparison of tape stripping with the human skin blanching assay for the bioequivalence assessment of topical clobetasol propionate formulations. J Pharm Pharm Sci. 2010;13(1):11–20. doi: 10.18433/J3C01R.
    1. Parfitt NR, Skinner MF, Bon C, Kanfer I. Bioequivalence of topical clotrimazole formulations: an improved tape stripping method. J Pharm Pharm Sci. 2011;14(3):347–357. doi: 10.18433/J3RP5K.
    1. Kanfer I. Strategies for the bioequivalence assessment of topical dermatological dosage forms. J Bioequiv Availab. 2010;2(5):102–110. doi: 10.4172/jbb.1000040.
    1. Chaurasia CS, Müller M, Bashaw ED, et al. AAPS-FDA workshop white paper: microdialysis principles, application and regulatory perspectives. Pharm Res. 2007;24(5):1014–1025. doi: 10.1007/s11095-006-9206-z.
    1. Holmgaard R, Nielsen JB, Benfeldt E. Microdialysis sampling for investigations of bioavailability and bioequivalence of topically administered drugs: current state and future perspectives. Skin Pharmacol Physiol. 2010;23(5):225–243. doi: 10.1159/000314698.
    1. Herkenne C, Alberti I, Naik A, et al. In vivo methods for the assessment of topical drug bioavailability. Pharm Res. 2008;25(1):87–103. doi: 10.1007/s11095-007-9429-7.
    1. Kreilgaard M. Assessment of cutaneous drug delivery using microdialysis. Adv Drug Deliv Rev. 2002;1(54 Suppl 1):S99–S121. doi: 10.1016/S0169-409X(02)00117-5.
    1. Tettey-Amlalo RNO, Kanfer I, Skinner MF, et al. Application of dermal microdialysis for the evaluation of bioequivalence of a ketoprofen topical gel. Eur J Pharm Sci. 2009;36(2–3):219–225. doi: 10.1016/j.ejps.2008.09.002.
    1. Au WL, Skinner MF, Benfeldt E, et al. Application of dermal microdialysis for the determination of bioavailability of clobetasol propionate applied to the skin of human subjects. Skin Pharmacol Physiol. 2012;25(1):17–24. doi: 10.1159/000330489.
    1. Benfeldt E, Hansen SH, Vølund A, et al. Bioequivalence of topical formulations in humans: evaluation by dermal microdialysis sampling and the dermatopharmacokinetic method. J Invest Dermatol. 2007;127(1):170–178. doi: 10.1038/sj.jid.5700495.
    1. Bodenlenz M, Höfferer C, Magnes C, et al. Dermal PK/PD of a lipophilic topical drug in psoriatic patients by continuous intradermal membrane-free sampling. Eur J Pharm Biopharm. 2012;81(3):635–641. doi: 10.1016/j.ejpb.2012.04.009.
    1. Bodenlenz M, Aigner B, Dragatin C, et al. Clinical applicability of dOFM devices for dermal sampling. Skin Res Technol. 2013;19(4):474–483.
    1. Dragatin C, Polus F, Bodenlenz M, et al. Secukinumab distributes into dermal interstitial fluid of psoriasis patients as demonstrated by open flow microperfusion. Exp Dermatol. 2016;25(2):157–159. doi: 10.1111/exd.12863.
    1. Bodenlenz M, Dragatin C, Liebenberger L, et al. Penetration of clobetasol-17-propionate into psoriatic lesional and non-lesional skin assessed by dermal open flow microperfusion with time and space resolution. Pharm Res. 2016. [Epub ahead of print].
    1. Morgan CJ, Renwick AG, Friedmann PS. The role of stratum corneum and dermal microvascular perfusion in penetration and tissue levels of water-soluble drugs investigated by microdialysis. Br J Dermatol. 2003;148(3):434–443. doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2133.2003.05163.x.
    1. Klimowicz A, Farfał S, Bielecka-Grzela S. Evaluation of skin penetration of topically applied drugs in humans by cutaneous microdialysis: acyclovir vs. salicylic acid. J Clin Pharm Ther. 2007;32(2):143–148. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2710.2007.00803.x.

Source: PubMed

3
Abonnere