The proceedings from the 30th August 2023 (Day 2) of the workshop “Physiologically Based Biopharmaceutics Models (PBBM) Best Practices for Drug Product Quality: Regulatory and Industry Perspectives” are provided herein. Day 2 covered PBBM case studies from six regulatory authorities which provided considerations for model verification, validation, and application based on the context of use (COU) of the model. PBBM case studies to define critical material attribute (CMA) specification settings, such as active pharmaceutical ingredient (API) particle size distributions (PSDs) were shared. PBBM case studies to define critical quality attributes (CQAs) such as the dissolution specification setting or to define the bioequivalence safe space were also discussed. Examples of PBBM using the credibility assessment framework, COU and model risk assessment, as well as scientific learnings from PBBM case studies are provided. Breakout session discussions highlighted current trends and barriers to application of PBBMs including: (a) PBBM credibility assessment framework and level of validation, (b) use of disposition parameters in PBBM and points to consider when iv data are not available, (c) conducting virtual bioequivalence trials and dealing with variability, (d) model acceptance criteria, and (e) application of PBBMs for establishing safe space and failure edges.

The in-person workshop “Drug Dissolution in Oral Drug Absorption” was held on May 23–24, 2023, in Baltimore, MD, USA. The workshop was organized into lectures and breakout sessions. Three common topics that were re-visited by various lecturers were amorphous solid dispersions (ASDs), dissolution/permeation interplay, and in vitro methods to predict in vivo biopharmaceutics performance and risk. Topics that repeatedly surfaced across breakout sessions were the following: (1) meaning and assessment of “dissolved drug,” particularly of poorly water soluble drug in colloidal environments (e.g., fed conditions, ASDs); (2) potential limitations of a test that employs sink conditions for a poorly water soluble drug; (3) non-compendial methods (e.g., two-stage or multi-stage method, dissolution/permeation methods); (4) non-compendial conditions (e.g., apex vessels, non-sink conditions); and (5) potential benefit of having both a quality control method for batch release and a biopredictive/biorelevant method for biowaiver or bridging scenarios. An identified obstacle to non-compendial methods is the uncertainty of global regulatory acceptance of such methods.

The workshop "Drug Permeability - Best Practices for Biopharmaceutics Classification System (BCS) Based Biowaivers" was held virtually on December 6, 2021, organized by the University of Maryland Center of Excellence in Regulatory Science and Innovation (M-CERSI), and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The workshop focused on the industrial, academic, and regulatory experiences in generating and evaluating permeability data, with the aim to further facilitate implementation of the BCS and efficient development of high-quality drug products globally. As the first international permeability workshop since the BCS based biowaivers was finalized as the ICH M9 guideline, the workshop included lectures, panel discussions, and breakout sessions. Lecture and panel discussion topics covered case studies at IND, NDA, and ANDA stages, typical deficiencies relating to permeability assessment supporting BCS biowaiver, types of evidence that are available to demonstrate high permeability, method suitability of a permeability assay, impact of excipients, importance of global acceptance of permeability methods, opportunities to expand the use of biowaivers (e.g. non-Caco-2 cell lines, totality-of-evidence approach to demonstrate high permeability) and future of permeability testing. Breakout sessions focused on 1) in vitro and in silico intestinal permeability methods; 2) potential excipient effects on permeability and; 3) use of label and literature data to designate permeability class.

This report summarizes podium presentations and breakout sessions from the second day of the 2019 M-CERSI workshop on In Vitro Dissolution Similarity Assessment in Support of Drug Product Quality: What, How, and When? Presenters from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), Health Canada (HC), European Medicines Agency (EMA), Brazilian Health Surveillance Agency (ANVISA), and the pharmaceutical industry shared experiences/concerns with dissolution profile similarity assessment supporting minor/moderate Chemistry, Manufacturing and Control (CMC) changes. Members from regulatory agencies explained that dissolution profile similarity testing is only part of the overall assessment of the acceptability of the proposed changes; decisions are usually made based on aggregate weight of evidence. Scientific shortcomings of f2 were highlighted but no proposal on how to replace it was made. Controlling dissolution timepoint variability and application of pairwise batch-to-batch comparisons (PBC) of dissolution profiles caused considerable debate. Several industry participants suggested increased sample sizes to raise confidence in decision-making and to avoid PBC. They proposed identification of a single mathematical method with predefined acceptance criteria and suggested that dissolution timepoint selection should follow EMA and HC guidance. A majority of meeting attendees favored applying clinically relevant dissolution specifications (CRDS) and dissolution safe space to determine the impact of minor/moderate CMC changes as opposed to dissolution profile similarity assessment via statistical methods. Day 2 of the workshop highlighted the need and opportunities for global harmonization including variability, timepoint selection, role of CRDS, and statistical methods to address the ambiguity globally operating pharmaceutical companies are currently facing.

To date, few examples of dissolution models for real-time release testing (RTRT) have been approved for commercial drug products or published in literature. Thus, a structured approach has not been established by which a novice to the field could design, develop, validate, and implement an RTRT dissolution model. Moreover, with scant examples available, there has not been a body of work by which to learn of general regulatory expectations for such models. To address these gaps and to encourage conversation between regulatory and industrial experts on these topics, a virtual (web-based) workshop entitled "Predictive Dissolution Models for Real-Time Release Testing: Development and Implementation" was held November 11-12, 2021. This article summarizes key points from the podium presentations, panel discussions, and breakout sessions focusing on (1) the current best practices to establish predictive model specifications; (2) designing models to predict the "safe space" of a release test and creating models utilizing process analytical technology (PAT); and (3) exploring the strategy of compliant regulatory submissions, including model validation and post-approval lifecycle management. Industrial case studies were presented showcasing attempted approaches to and successful implementations of RTRT of dissolution for drug product manufacturing.

This report summarizes the proceedings for Day 3 of the workshop titled "Current State and Future Expectations of Translational Modeling Strategies to Support Drug Product Development, Manufacturing Changes and Controls". From a drug product quality perspective, patient-centric product development necessitates the development of clinically relevant drug product specifications (CRDPS). In this regard, Physiologically Based Biopharmaceutics modeling (PBBM) is a viable tool to establish links between in-vitro to in-vivo data, and support with establishing CRDPS. The theme of day 3 was practical applications of PBBM to support drug product quality. In this manuscript, case studies from US FDA, EMA and pharmaceutical industry on applications of PBBM in drug product quality are summarized which include 1) regulatory agency's perspectives on establishing the safe space and achieving study waivers, 2) model-informed risk assessment on the effects of acid reducing agents, bridging of dissolution methods, food effect, and formulation selection, and 3) understanding clinical formulation performance. Breakout session discussions focused on four topics – 1) terminologies related to physiologically based modeling in support of drug product quality, 2) regulatory harmonization on evidentiary standards, 3) CRDPS approaches and 4) bridging between biorelevant and quality control (QC) dissolution methods.

This publication summarizes the proceedings of day 3 of a 3-day workshop on “Dissolution and Translational Modeling Strategies Enabling Patient-Centric Product Development.” Specifically, this publication discusses the current approaches in building clinical relevance into drug product development for solid oral dosage forms, along with challenges that both industry and regulatory agencies are facing in setting clinically relevant drug product specifications (CRDPS) as presented at the workshop. The concept of clinical relevance is a multidisciplinary effort which implies an understanding of the relationship between the critical quality attributes (CQAs) and their impact on predetermined clinical outcomes. Developing this level of understanding, in many cases, requires introducing deliberate but meaningful variations into the critical material attributes (CMAs) and critical process parameters (CPPs) to establish a relationship between the resulting in vitro dissolution/release profiles and in vivo PK performance, a surrogate for clinical outcomes. Alternatively, with the intention of improving the efficiency of the drug product development process by limiting the burden of conducting in vivo studies, this understanding can be either built, or at least enhanced, through in silico efforts, such as IVIVC and physiologically based pharmacokinetic (PBPK) absorption modeling and simulation (M&S). These approaches enable dissolution testing to establish safe boundaries and reject drug product batches falling outside of the established safe range (e.g., due to inadequate in vivo performance) enabling the method to become clinically relevant. Ultimately, these efforts contribute towards patient-centric drug product development and allow regulatory flexibility throughout the lifecycle of the drug product.

The FDA guidance on application of the biopharmaceutics classification system (BCS) for waiver of in vivo bioequivalence (BE) studies was issued in August 2000. Since then, this guidance has created worldwide interest among biopharmaceutical scientists in regulatory agencies, academia, and industry toward its implementation and further expansion. This article describes how the review implementation of this guidance was undertaken at the FDA and results of these efforts over last dozen years or so across the new, and the generic, drug domains are provided. Results show that greater than 160 applications were approved, or tentatively approved, based on the BCS approach across multiple therapeutic areas; an additional significant finding was that at least 50% of these approvals were in the central nervous system (CNS) area. These findings indicate a robust utilization of the BCS approach toward reducing unnecessary in vivo BE studies and speeding up availability of high quality pharmaceutical products. The article concludes with a look at the adoption of this framework by regulatory and health policy organizations across the globe, and FDAs current thinking on areas of improvement of this guidance.

Establishing bioequivalence (BE) of drugs indicated to treat cancer poses special challenges. For ethical reasons, often, the studies need to be conducted in cancer patients rather than in healthy volunteers, especially when the drug is cytotoxic. The Biopharmaceutics Classification System (BCS) introduced by Amidon ( 1 ) and adopted by the FDA, presents opportunities to avoid conducting the bioequivalence studies in humans. This paper analyzes the application of the BCS approach by the generic pharmaceutical industry and the FDA to oncology drug products. To date, the FDA has granted BCS-based biowaivers for several drug products involving at least four different drug substances, used to treat cancer. Compared to in vivo BE studies, development of data to justify BCS waivers is considered somewhat easier, faster, and more cost effective. However, the FDA experience shows that the approval times for applications containing in vitro studies to support the BCS-based biowaivers are often as long as the applications containing in vivo BE studies, primarily because of inadequate information in the submissions. This paper deliberates some common causes for the delays in the approval of applications requesting BCS-based biowaivers for oncology drug products. Scientific considerations of conducting a non-BCS-based in vivo BE study for generic oncology drug products are also discussed. It is hoped that the information provided in our study would help the applicants to improve the quality of ANDA submissions in the future.