不同的双异麦芽糖铁制剂--原研制剂与预期相似制剂的体外比较。

IF 4.4 2区 医学 Q1 PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY European Journal of Pharmaceutics and Biopharmaceutics Pub Date : 2024-07-26 DOI:10.1016/j.ejpb.2024.114426
{"title":"不同的双异麦芽糖铁制剂--原研制剂与预期相似制剂的体外比较。","authors":"","doi":"10.1016/j.ejpb.2024.114426","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><p>The complex nature of intravenous (IV) iron formulations makes manufacturing and characterising similars challenging. This study examined whether simple <em>in vitro</em> 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.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>Iron content, pH, density, non-volatile residue, carbohydrate content, molecular weight distribution, complex robustness (measured using acid hydrolysis half-life [t<sub>½</sub>]) 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®.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>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<sub>½</sub>: 15 h versus 40.3 h); t<sub>½</sub> 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® (&lt;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®.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><p>Simple <em>in vitro</em> 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.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":12024,"journal":{"name":"European Journal of Pharmaceutics and Biopharmaceutics","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0939641124002522/pdfft?md5=6f8f19cd20d572a6c4cbd456b746198a&pid=1-s2.0-S0939641124002522-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Dissimilar ferric derisomaltose formulations – In vitro comparisons between an originator and its intended similars\",\"authors\":\"\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.ejpb.2024.114426\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><h3>Background</h3><p>The complex nature of intravenous (IV) iron formulations makes manufacturing and characterising similars challenging. This study examined whether simple <em>in vitro</em> 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.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>Iron content, pH, density, non-volatile residue, carbohydrate content, molecular weight distribution, complex robustness (measured using acid hydrolysis half-life [t<sub>½</sub>]) 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®.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>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<sub>½</sub>: 15 h versus 40.3 h); t<sub>½</sub> 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® (&lt;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®.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><p>Simple <em>in vitro</em> 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.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":12024,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"European Journal of Pharmaceutics and Biopharmaceutics\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-07-26\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0939641124002522/pdfft?md5=6f8f19cd20d572a6c4cbd456b746198a&pid=1-s2.0-S0939641124002522-main.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"European Journal of Pharmaceutics and Biopharmaceutics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0939641124002522\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Journal of Pharmaceutics and Biopharmaceutics","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0939641124002522","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:静脉注射(IV)铁制剂的复杂性使得生产和鉴定仿制药具有挑战性。本研究考察了简单的体外试验是否能区分高剂量静脉注射铁制剂 Monofer®(脱异麦芽糖铁 [FDI])和 FDI 的首批预期仿制品 Rapifer®(FDI 预期相似物 A [FDIIS-A])和 Tosiron®(FDI 预期相似物 B [FDIIS-B]),这两种制剂分别在印度和巴基斯坦获得批准。这两种产品在欧洲和美国都没有销售:方法:对铁含量、pH 值、密度、非挥发性残留物、碳水化合物含量、分子量分布、复合物稳固性(使用酸水解半衰期 [t½] 测量)和游离(可透析)铁含量进行检测。将三批 FDIIS-A 的平均结果与三批 Monofer® 的平均值进行了比较。由于产品停产,只有一批 FDIIS-B 可与 Monofer® 进行比较:结果:所有配方的铁含量相似(∼100 mg/mL)。FDIIS-A 和 FDIIS-B 的色谱图(采用凝胶渗透色谱法)与 Monofer® 的色谱图不同。FDIIS-A 的稳定性大大低于 Monofer®(t½:15 小时对 40.3 小时);FDIIS-B 的 t½ 未进行测试。与 Monofer® 相比,FDIIS-A(0.091 % w/v)和 FDIIS-B(1.0 % w/v)中的游离铁含量要高得多(结论:FDIIS-A 和 FDIIS-B 的游离铁含量均高于 Monofer®):简单的体外测试表明,除了总铁含量外,FDI 的首批仿制药与其原研药几乎没有相似之处。很明显,Monofer® 的疗效和安全性不能推断到这两种预期仿制药上。这些结果要求监管部门加强对预期静脉注射铁剂类似物的审查。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

摘要图片

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Dissimilar ferric derisomaltose formulations – In vitro comparisons between an originator and its intended similars

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 [t½]) 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® (t½: 15 h versus 40.3 h); t½ 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.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
8.80
自引率
4.10%
发文量
211
审稿时长
36 days
期刊介绍: The European Journal of Pharmaceutics and Biopharmaceutics provides a medium for the publication of novel, innovative and hypothesis-driven research from the areas of Pharmaceutics and Biopharmaceutics. Topics covered include for example: Design and development of drug delivery systems for pharmaceuticals and biopharmaceuticals (small molecules, proteins, nucleic acids) Aspects of manufacturing process design Biomedical aspects of drug product design Strategies and formulations for controlled drug transport across biological barriers Physicochemical aspects of drug product development Novel excipients for drug product design Drug delivery and controlled release systems for systemic and local applications Nanomaterials for therapeutic and diagnostic purposes Advanced therapy medicinal products Medical devices supporting a distinct pharmacological effect.
期刊最新文献
Dissolving microneedle patches for delivery of amniotic mesenchymal stem cell metabolite products for skin regeneration in UV-aging induced mice Evaluation of floatability characteristics of gastroretentive tablets using VIS imaging with artificial neural networks Editorial Board In silico evaluation of corneal patch eluting anti-VEGF agents concept Novel long-acting treatment for schizophrenia based on paliperidone dissolving and implantable microarray patches
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1