Demonstrating bioequivalence of locally acting orally inhaled drug products (OIPs): Workshop summary report

Wallace P. Adams, Richard C. Ahrens, Mei Ling Chen, David Christopher, Badrul A. Chowdhury, Dale P. Conner, Richard Dalby, Kevin Fitzgerald, Leslie Hendeles, Anthony J. Hickey, Günther Hochhaus, Beth L. Laube, Paul Lucas, Sau L. Lee, Svetlana Lyapustina, Bing Li, Dennis O'Connor, Neil Parikh, David A. Parkins, Prasad PeriGary R. Pitcairn, Michael Riebe, Partha Roy, Tushar Shah, Gur Jai Pal Singh, Sandra Suarez Sharp, Julie D. Suman, Marjolein Weda, Janet Woodcock, Lawrence Yu

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

55 Scopus citations


This March 2009 Workshop Summary Report was sponsored by Product Quality Research Institute (PQRI) based on a proposal by the Inhalation and Nasal Technology Focus Group (INTFG) of the American Association of Pharmaceutical Scientists (AAPS). Participants from the pharmaceutical industry, academia and regulatory bodies from the United States, Europe, India, and Brazil attended the workshop with the objective of presenting, reviewing, and discussing recommendations for demonstrating bioequivalence (BE) that may be considered in the development of orally inhaled drug products and regulatory guidances for new drug applications (NDAs), abbreviated NDAs (ANDAs), and postapproval changes. The workshop addressed areas related to in vitro approaches to demonstrating BE, biomarker strategies, imaging techniques, in vivo approaches to establishing local delivery equivalence and device design similarity. The workshop presented material that provided a baseline for the current understanding of orally inhaled drug products (OIPs) and identified gaps in knowledge and consensus that, if answered, might allow the design of a robust, streamlined method for the BE assessment of locally acting inhalation drugs. These included the following: (1) cascade impactor (CI) studies are not a good 2predictor of the pulmonary dose; more detailed studies on in vitro/in vivo correlations (e.g., suitability of CI studies for assessing differences in the regional deposition) are needed; (2) there is a lack of consensus on the appropriate statistical methods for assessing in vitro results; (3) fully validated and standardized imaging methods, while capable of providing information on pulmonary dose and regional deposition, might not be applicable to the BE of inhaled products mainly due to the problems of having access to radiolabeled innovator product; (4) if alternatives to current methods for establishing local delivery BE of OIPs cannot be established, biomarkers (pharmacodynamic or clinical endpoints) with a sufficiently steep dose-response need to be identified and validated for all relevant drug classes; and (5) the utility of pharmacokinetic studies for evaluating "local pulmonary delivery" equivalence deserves more attention. A summary of action items for seminars and working groups to address these topics in the future is also presented.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)1-29
Number of pages29
JournalJournal of aerosol medicine and pulmonary drug delivery
Issue number1
StatePublished - Feb 1 2010

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Pulmonary and Respiratory Medicine
  • Pharmaceutical Science
  • Pharmacology (medical)


Dive into the research topics of 'Demonstrating bioequivalence of locally acting orally inhaled drug products (OIPs): Workshop summary report'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this