Comparison of Dissolution Profiles

Introduction

Dissolution profile comparison is a fundamental aspect of pharmaceutical analysis and regulatory assessment. It involves evaluating the release behavior of a drug or pharmaceutical product over a specified time period. By examining how the drug dissolves in a liquid medium, such as water, valuable insights can be gained regarding its performance, bioavailability, and potential bioequivalence. 

This comparative analysis plays a crucial role in ensuring product quality, consistency, and regulatory compliance. Understanding the similarities and differences in dissolution profiles is essential for optimizing formulations, assessing post-approval changes, and evaluating the equivalence of generic drugs. By employing various mathematical models and statistical approaches, researchers and regulatory agencies can make informed decisions about the effectiveness and safety of pharmaceutical products.

What is a dissolution profile comparison and what is its impact?

In recent years, the FDA has placed increased importance on comparing dissolution profiles in the context of post-approval changes and biowaivers. By conducting dissolution profile comparisons under appropriate testing conditions, it becomes possible to characterize a product more compared to a single-point dissolution test. Such comparisons are particularly valuable when evaluating changes related to SUPAC (Scale-Up and Post-Approval Changes) or when comparing different strengths of a product, as they help ensure similarity in product performance and detect any potential bioequivalence.

A dissolution profile comparison refers to the assessment and comparison of the dissolution behavior of a drug or pharmaceutical product over a specified period of time. Dissolution refers to the process by which a solid substance dissolves in a liquid medium, such as water, to form a solution. In pharmaceuticals, dissolution testing is conducted to evaluate the rate and extent to which a drug is released from its dosage forms, such as tablets or capsules. It becomes available for absorption in the body.

The impact of dissolution profile comparison is significant, particularly in regulatory considerations and pharmaceutical development. Here are a few key points regarding its impact:

1. Regulatory Compliance: 

Regulatory agencies, such as the FDA, require dissolution testing as part of the drug approval process. Comparing dissolution profiles is crucial to demonstrate product consistency, quality, and performance, especially for post-approval changes, generic drug approvals, and biowaivers. It helps ensure that changes in manufacturing processes, formulations, or strengths do not significantly impact the drug's dissolution characteristics.

2. Product Performance Assessment:

Dissolution profile comparison provides valuable insights into the behavior of a drug in terms of its release characteristics. It helps assess the drug's performance, such as its rate and extent of dissolution, which directly impacts its bioavailability and therapeutic effectiveness. Comparing dissolution profiles allows manufacturers to monitor and maintain consistent product performance.

3. Bioequivalence Evaluation:

Comparing dissolution profiles plays a vital role in evaluating the bioequivalence of generic drug products against their respective reference (innovator) products. It helps determine if the generic drug releases the active ingredient at a similar rate and extent as the reference product, ensuring comparable efficacy and safety.

4. Formulation Development and Optimization:

Dissolution profile comparison aids in the formulation development and optimization of pharmaceutical products. It helps scientists understand how different formulation factors, such as excipients, manufacturing techniques, and drug delivery systems, influence dissolution behavior. This knowledge allows for the design of formulations that achieve the desired dissolution characteristics for optimal drug release.

ALSO READ: Pre-formulation and Formulation Development

In summary, dissolution profile comparison is a critical aspect of pharmaceutical development and regulatory compliance. It ensures product consistency, evaluates bioequivalence, and facilitates formulation optimization, ultimately leading to safe and effective medications for patients.

Among the various methods explored for comparing dissolution profiles, the simplest approach is known as f2. Introduced by Moore and Flanner, this model-independent mathematical method involves assessing two factors, f1, and f2, to quantify the similarity between dissolution profiles.

Calculation of dissolution profile comparison

Where, 

Rt and Tt are the cumulative percentages dissolved at each of the selected 

n time points of the reference and test product respectively. 

f1 is proportional to the average difference between the two profiles, 

f2 is inversely proportional to the average squared difference between the two profiles, with emphasis on the larger difference among all the time points. 

The factor f2 measures the closeness between the two profiles. Because of the nature of measurement, f1 was described as a difference factor, and f2 as a similarity factor. 

In dissolution profile comparisons, especially to assure similarity in product performance, regulatory interest is in knowing how similar the two curves are, and to have a measure that is more sensitive to large differences at any particular time point. For this reason, the f2 comparison has been the focus of Agency guidance.

When the two profiles are identical, f2=100. An average difference of 10% at all measured time points results in a f2 value of 50. FDA has set a public standard of f2 value between 50-100 to indicate similarity between two dissolution profiles.

For a dissolution profile comparison:

1. At least 12 units should be used for each profile determination. Mean dissolution values can be used to estimate the similarity factor, f2. To use mean data, the % coefficient of variation at the earlier point should not be more than 20% and at other time points should not be more than 10%.
2. For circumstances where wide variability is observed, or a statistical evaluation of the f2 metric is desired, a bootstrap approach to calculate a confidence interval can be performed.
3. The dissolution measurements of the two products (test and reference, pre- and post-change, two strengths) should be made under the same test conditions. The dissolution time points for both the profiles should be the same, e.g., for immediate-release products 15, 30,45, and 60 minutes, and for extended-release products 1, 2, 3, 5, and 8 hours.
4. Because f2 values are sensitive to the number of dissolution time points, only one measurement should be considered after 85% dissolution of the product.
5. For rapidly dissolving products, i.e., more than 85% in 15 minutes or less, a profile comparison is not necessary.
6. An f2 value of 50 or greater (50-100) ensures sameness or equivalence of the two curves and, thus, the performance of the two products.

A general question is how large can the difference between the mean dissolution profiles before the difference is likely to impact in vivo performance. From a public health point of view, and as a regulatory consideration, a conservative approach is appropriate. The f2 comparison metric with a value of 50 or greater is a conservative, but reliable estimate to ensure product sameness and product performance.

ALSO READ: Can We Use Expired Drug Products? Is it Safe and Effective?