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.”

The goal of this article is to discuss considerations regarding implementation of the parametric tolerance interval two one-sided test (PTI-TOST) for delivered dose uniformity (DDU) of orally inhaled products (OIPs). That test was proposed by FDA in 2005 as an alternative to the counting test described in the 1998 draft FDA guidance for metered dose inhalers and dry powder inhalers. The 2005 PTI-TOST, however, still has not found much use in practice despite the general desirability of parametric approaches in modern pharmaceutical quality control. A key reason for its slow uptake is that it rejects, with high probability, batches whose quality is considered acceptable by all other published regulatory and pharmacopeial standards as well as by the DDU specifications for many approved OIPs. Manufacturers therefore continue using nonparametric counting tests for control of DDU. A simulated case study presented here compares the consequences of the PTI-TOST compared to the counting test. The article discusses three possibilities that would help increase the uptake of the PTI-TOST approach, namely: product-specific quality standards, a different default standard suitable for the majority of OIPs, and integration of the PTI-TOST with a continuous verification control strategy rather than using it as an isolated-batch (transactional) end-product testing. In any of these efforts, if a parametric test is used, it is critical not to set the target quality close to, or at the boundary of the process/product capabilities, because PTI tests are designed to reject with high probability the identified target quality.