Dissimilar ferric derisomaltose formulations – In vitro comparisons between an originator and its intended similars

Abstract

Background

The complex nature of intravenous (IV) iron formulations makes manufacturing and characterising similars challenging. This study examined whether simple in vitro tests can distinguish the high-dose IV iron formulation, Monofer® (ferric derisomaltose [FDI]), from the first intended copies of FDI, Rapifer® (FDI intended similar A [FDIIS-A]) and Tosiron® (FDI intended similar B [FDIIS-B]), approved in India and Pakistan, respectively. Neither intended similar is available in Europe or the United States.

Methods

Iron content, pH, density, non-volatile residue, carbohydrate content, molecular weight distribution, complex robustness (measured using acid hydrolysis half-life [t_½]) and free (dialysable) iron content were examined. Mean results from three batches of FDIIS-A were compared with mean values calculated from three batches of Monofer®. Due to product withdrawal, only one batch of FDIIS-B was available for comparison with Monofer®.

Results

Iron content was similar for all formulations (∼100 mg/mL). The chromatograms (obtained using gel permeation chromatography) of FDIIS-A and FDIIS-B differed from that of Monofer®. FDIIS-A was substantially less robust than Monofer® (t_½: 15 h versus 40.3 h); t_½ for FDIIS-B was not tested. Free iron content was substantially higher in FDIIS-A (0.091 % w/v) and FDIIS-B (1.0 % w/v) versus Monofer® (<0.003 % w/v). Where tested, remaining parameters varied between the formulations (insufficient sample quantities prevented all tests being conducted for all intended similars). For all tests, greater inter-batch variability was seen for FDIIS-A versus Monofer®.

Conclusions

Simple in vitro tests demonstrated that, aside from total iron content, the first intended similars of FDI bear little resemblance to their originator drug. It is clear that the efficacy and safety profile of Monofer® cannot be extrapolated to the two intended similars. The results call for increased regulatory scrutiny of intended IV iron similars.