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":"BACKGROUND\nThis 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.\n\n\nMETHODS\nThe 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.\n\n\nRESULTS\nAfter 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.\n\n\nCONCLUSION\nDDDDs 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.","PeriodicalId":94004,"journal":{"name":"Expert opinion on drug delivery","volume":"58 38","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-16","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\":\"BACKGROUND\\nThis 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.\\n\\n\\nMETHODS\\nThe 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.\\n\\n\\nRESULTS\\nAfter 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.\\n\\n\\nCONCLUSION\\nDDDDs 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.\",\"PeriodicalId\":94004,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Expert opinion on drug delivery\",\"volume\":\"58 38\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-05-16\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Expert opinion on drug delivery\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"0\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/17425247.2024.2356678\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Expert opinion on drug delivery","FirstCategoryId":"0","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/17425247.2024.2356678","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","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,应进行阈值分析。如果发现参考文献列表药物 (RLD) 和仿制药设备之间存在 "其他差异",则可要求进行比较使用人为因素 (CUHF) 研究。结果在每位参与者完成四次模拟注射后,观察到 RLD(0.70)和仿制药(0.68)笔式注射器之间存在相似的类型和使用错误率。结论DDDD 可以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,为制药公司的药物-设备组合产品的 ANDA 提交战略提供支持。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.