Laurie Brunet-Manquat, Anne Combedazou, Bomby Ahuja, Alice Maden, Claire Ramus, Tatsiana Mardovina, Cécile Frolet
{"title":"为降低制药公司提交药物-器械组合产品 ANDA 的风险而开展的 ANDA 前战略和人为因素活动:形成性比较使用人为因素研究的案例研究。","authors":"Laurie Brunet-Manquat, Anne Combedazou, Bomby Ahuja, Alice Maden, Claire Ramus, Tatsiana Mardovina, Cécile Frolet","doi":"10.1080/17425247.2024.2356678","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>This article presents a strategy that a Drug Delivery Device Developer (DDDD) has adopted to support Abbreviated New Drug Application (ANDA) submissions of drug-device combination products. As per the related FDA guidance, a threshold analysis should be compiled. If 'other differences' between the Reference Listed Drug (RLD) and the generic drug devices are identified, a Comparative Use Human Factors (CUHF) study may be requested.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The DDDD performed task analysis and physical comparison to assess the pen injector design differences. Then, a formative CUHF study with 25 participants simulating injections using both RLD and the generic pen injectors was conducted.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>After each participant completed four simulated injections, similar type and rates of use error between the RLD (0.70) and generic (0.68) pen injectors were observed.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>DDDDs can support pharmaceutical companies in the ANDA submission strategy of their drug-device combination product by initiating comparative task analysis and physical comparison of the device as inputs for the threshold analysis. If 'other differences' are identified, a formative CUHF study can be performed. As shown in our case study, this approach can be leveraged to support the sample size calculation and non-inferiority margin determination for a CUHF study with the final combination product.</p>","PeriodicalId":94004,"journal":{"name":"Expert opinion on drug delivery","volume":" ","pages":"767-778"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Pre-ANDA strategy and Human Factors activities to de-risk pharmaceutical companies ANDA submission of drug-device combination products: case study of a formative Comparative Use Human Factors study.\",\"authors\":\"Laurie Brunet-Manquat, Anne Combedazou, Bomby Ahuja, Alice Maden, Claire Ramus, Tatsiana Mardovina, Cécile Frolet\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/17425247.2024.2356678\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>This article presents a strategy that a Drug Delivery Device Developer (DDDD) has adopted to support Abbreviated New Drug Application (ANDA) submissions of drug-device combination products. As per the related FDA guidance, a threshold analysis should be compiled. If 'other differences' between the Reference Listed Drug (RLD) and the generic drug devices are identified, a Comparative Use Human Factors (CUHF) study may be requested.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The DDDD performed task analysis and physical comparison to assess the pen injector design differences. Then, a formative CUHF study with 25 participants simulating injections using both RLD and the generic pen injectors was conducted.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>After each participant completed four simulated injections, similar type and rates of use error between the RLD (0.70) and generic (0.68) pen injectors were observed.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>DDDDs can support pharmaceutical companies in the ANDA submission strategy of their drug-device combination product by initiating comparative task analysis and physical comparison of the device as inputs for the threshold analysis. If 'other differences' are identified, a formative CUHF study can be performed. As shown in our case study, this approach can be leveraged to support the sample size calculation and non-inferiority margin determination for a CUHF study with the final combination product.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":94004,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Expert opinion on drug delivery\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"767-778\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-05-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Expert opinion on drug delivery\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/17425247.2024.2356678\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/5/29 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Expert opinion on drug delivery","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/17425247.2024.2356678","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/5/29 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
背景:本文介绍了一家给药设备开发商(DDDD)为支持药物-设备组合产品的简略新药申请(ANDA)提交而采取的策略。根据 FDA 的相关指导,应编制一份阈值分析。如果发现参考文献列表药物(RLD)和仿制药器械之间存在 "其他差异",可要求进行比较使用人为因素(CUHF)研究:方法:DDD 进行了任务分析和物理比较,以评估笔式注射器的设计差异。然后,由 25 名参与者模拟使用 RLD 和普通笔式注射器进行注射,开展了一项形成性 CUHF 研究:结果:每位参与者完成四次模拟注射后,观察到 RLD(0.70)和普通笔式注射器(0.68)的类型和使用错误率相似:通过启动任务比较分析和设备物理比较作为阈值分析的输入,DDDDs 可以支持制药公司的药物-设备组合产品的 ANDA 提交战略。如果发现 "其他差异",则可进行形成性 CUHF 研究。正如我们的案例研究所示,这种方法可用于支持样本量计算和确定最终组合产品的 CUHF 研究的非劣效边际。
Pre-ANDA strategy and Human Factors activities to de-risk pharmaceutical companies ANDA submission of drug-device combination products: case study of a formative Comparative Use Human Factors study.
Background: This article presents a strategy that a Drug Delivery Device Developer (DDDD) has adopted to support Abbreviated New Drug Application (ANDA) submissions of drug-device combination products. As per the related FDA guidance, a threshold analysis should be compiled. If 'other differences' between the Reference Listed Drug (RLD) and the generic drug devices are identified, a Comparative Use Human Factors (CUHF) study may be requested.
Methods: The DDDD performed task analysis and physical comparison to assess the pen injector design differences. Then, a formative CUHF study with 25 participants simulating injections using both RLD and the generic pen injectors was conducted.
Results: After each participant completed four simulated injections, similar type and rates of use error between the RLD (0.70) and generic (0.68) pen injectors were observed.
Conclusion: DDDDs can support pharmaceutical companies in the ANDA submission strategy of their drug-device combination product by initiating comparative task analysis and physical comparison of the device as inputs for the threshold analysis. If 'other differences' are identified, a formative CUHF study can be performed. As shown in our case study, this approach can be leveraged to support the sample size calculation and non-inferiority margin determination for a CUHF study with the final combination product.