Transcript Current Statistical Issues in Dissolution Profile
Current Statistical Issues in Dissolution Profile Comparisons Sutan Wu, Ph.D.
FDA/CDER 5/20/2014
1
Outlines:
• Background of Dissolution Profile Comparisons • Current Methods for Dissolution Profile Comparisons • Current Statistical Concerns • Simulation Cases • Discussions
2
Disclaimer:
The presented work and views in this talk represents the presenter’s personal work and views, and do not reflect any views or policy with CDER/FDA.
3
Backgrounds:
Dissolution profile comparison: why so important?
Extensive applications throughout the product development process Comparison between batches of pre-change and post-change under certain post-change conditions e.g.: add a lower strength, formulation change, manufacturing site change Generic Drug Evaluations FDA Guidance: Dissolution, SUPAC-SS, SUPAC-IR, IVIV and etc.
4
Dissolution Data
Recorded at multiple time points At least 12 tablets at each selected time point is recommended Profile curves are drug dependent e.g: Immediate release vs. extend release Response: cumulative percentage in dissolution 5
Current Methods for Dissolution Profile Comparisons
Model-Independent Approaches Similarity factor 𝑓 2 (FDA Dissolution Guidance):
f
2
50
log{[ 1
1
n
n t
1
(
R t
T t
)
2
]
0 .
5
100 }
Multivariate Confidence Region Procedure --- Mahalanobis Distance: 𝐷 𝑀 = (𝑹 𝑡 − 𝑻 𝑡 )′ Σ 𝑝𝑜𝑜𝑙𝑒𝑑 −1 (𝑹 𝑡 − 𝑻 𝑡 ) Σ 𝑝𝑜𝑜𝑙𝑒𝑑 = Σ 𝑡𝑒𝑠𝑡 +Σ 𝑟𝑒𝑓 2 , 𝑹 𝑡 = 𝑅 1 , … . 𝑅 𝑡 ′ , 𝑻 𝑡 = (𝑇 1 , … . 𝑇 𝑡 )′ Model-Dependent Approaches: Select the most appropriate model such as logit, Weibull to fit the dissolution data Compare the statistical distance among the model parameters 6
Methods
Similarity factor 𝑓 2
Pros
• • Simple to compute Clear Cut-off Point: 50
Cons Comments
• Only the mean dissolution profile to be considered; • Approximately over 95% applications • At least 3 same time point measurements for the test and reference batch; • Only one measurement should be considered after 85% dissolution of both products; • Bootstrapping f2 is used for data with large variability • %CV <=20% at the earlier time points and <=10% at other time points.
Mahalanobis Distance Model-dependent Approach • • • Both the mean profile and the batch variability to be considered together Simple stat formula Measurements at different time points • • • • Same time point measurements for the test and reference batches; Cut-off point not proposed Model selection Cut-off point not proposed • A few applications • • Hard to have a common acceptable cut-off point Some internal lab studies 7
Some Review Lessions:
75
p i n g B o o t s t r a p f 2
60 45 30 15 0 0 15 30 45
Similary Factor f2
60 75 • Large variability was observed in some applications and the conclusions based on similarity factor f2 were in doubt.
• Bootstrapping f2 was applied to re-evaluate the applications. Different conclusions were observed.
8
Motivations:
How to cooperate the variability consideration into dissolution profile comparison in a feasible and practical way?
Bootstrapping f2: Lower bound of the non-parametric bootstrapping confidence interval (90%) for f2 index 50 could be the cut-off point Subsequent Concerns: The validity of bootstrapping f2? Mahalanobis-Distance (M-Distance): A classical multivariate analysis tool for describing the distance between two vectors and widely used for outlier detection Upper Bound of the 90% 2-sided confidence interval (Tsong et. al. 1996) Subsequent Concerns: The validity of M-Distance? The cut-off point?
9
Objectives:
Thoroughly examine the performance of bootstrapping f2 and f2 index:
can bootstrapping f2 save the situations that f2 is not applicable?
Gain empirical knowledge of the values of M-distance: does M distance is a good substitute? What would be the “appropriate” cut-off point(s)?
10
Simulation Cases:
Scenarios 1: similarity factor f2 “safe” cases For both batches 1) %CV at earlier time points (within 15 mins) <= 20% and %CV <= 10% at other time points; 2) Only one measurement after 85% dissolution Scenarios 2: large batch variability cases (f2 is not recommended generally) %CV > 20% (<= 15 mins) or/and %CV > 10% (> 15mins) Different mean dissolution profile but same variability for both batches Same mean dissolution profile but testing batch has large variability Scenarios 3: multiple measurements after 85% dissolution “Safe” Variability cases: Dissolution Guidance recommendations Large Variability cases 11
Basic Simulation Structures:
Dissolution Mean Profile from Weibull Distribution: 𝑡 𝐷𝑖𝑠𝑠 % = 𝐷𝑚𝑎𝑥 ∗ [1 − exp(−( 𝑀𝐷𝑇 ) 𝐵 )], 𝐷𝑚𝑎𝑥: 𝑚𝑎𝑥𝑖𝑚𝑢𝑚 𝑑𝑖𝑠𝑠𝑜𝑙𝑢𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛, 𝑡: 𝑡𝑖𝑚𝑒 𝑝𝑜𝑖𝑛𝑡, 𝐵: 𝑑𝑖𝑠𝑠𝑜𝑙𝑢𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑒 Reference Batch: MDT= 25, B=1, Dmax=85 𝑀𝐷𝑇: 𝑚𝑒𝑎𝑛 𝑑𝑖𝑠𝑠𝑜𝑙𝑢𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑡𝑖𝑚𝑒, Testing Batch: MDT B Dmax
Start
13 0.55
73
End
37 1.45
97
Step
2 0.05
2 Batch Variability (%CV) for 12 tablets: <=15 mins >15 mins
Start
5% 5%
End
50% 30%
Step
2% 2% 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 0 10 20 30 40
Time in Mins
5000 iterations for Bootstrapping f2 Time (mins): 5, 10, 15, 20, 30, 45, 60 50 Ref Batch Testing Batch 1 Testing Batch 2 60 12 70
Scenarios 1 Cases:
%CV at all time points = 5%
Reference Testing
%CV at all time points = 10% f2
Bootstrapping f2 M-Distance
%CV (<=15mins) = 15%, %CV (> 15mins) = 12% 43.60
43.30
31.07
f2
Bootstrapping f2 M-Distance
51.04
50.77
9.18
f2
Bootstrapping f2 M-Distance
84.23
84.10
2.81
When similarity factor f2 is applicable per FDA guidance, bootstrapping f2 and f2 give the same similar/dissimilar conclusions; In examined cases, the values of bootstrapping f2 is close to f2 values, though slightly smaller; Values of M-Distance could vary a lot, but within expectations. 13
Demo of M-distance vs. Bootstrapping f2:
M-Distance vs. Bootstrapping f2
100 75 50 25 0 0 5 10
M-Distance
15 20 Values of M-Distance vary a lot: for higher Bootstrapping f2, M-Distance can be lower than 5; 25 • for board line cases (around 50), M-Distance can vary from 7 to 20. 30 14
Scenarios 2 Cases:
• Different Mean Dissolution Profile, but same variability at all the time points: some board line cases show up
Dmax=89, MDT=19, B=0.75
Dmax=89, MDT=19, B=0.85
%CV all time points 30% %CV all time points 30% Dmax=89, MDT=19, B=0.75
%CV all time points 10%
f2 f2 Bootstrapping f2 M-Distance 50.10
49.46
5.34
Bootstrapping f2 M-Distance 50.40
50.10
9.31
f2 Bootstrapping f2 M-Distance 51.3
50.54
5.03
Some discrepancies were observed between Bootstrapping f2 and f2 index Bootstrapping f2 gives different conclusions for the same mean profile but different batch variability Values of M-Distance vary
: stratified by batch variability?
15
Same Mean Dissolution Profile but large variability for testing batch 90 80 30 20 10 0 70 60 50 40 0 10 Testing Batch Ref Batch 20 30 40 50 60 70 In examined cases Bootstrapping f2 is more sensitive to batch variability, but still gives the same conclusion with cut-off point as 50; This may suggest to use a “higher” value as the cut-off point at large batch variability cases; M-Distance varies: depends on the batch variability 16
Scenarios 3: More than 1 measurement over 85%
100 50 40 30 20 90 80 70 60 10 0 0 10 20 30 40 Testing Batch Ref Batch 50 60 70 In examined cases, Bootstrapping f2 gives more appealing value but still same conclusion with cut-off point as 50; This may suggest to use a different value as cut-off point for bootstrapping f2.
17
Findings:
When similarity factor f2 is applicable per FDA Dissolution guidance, bootstrapping f2 and f2 give the same similar/dissimilar conclusions; In the examined cases, Bootstrapping f2 is more sensitive to batch variability or multiple >85% measurements; However, with 50 as the cut-off points, bootstrapping f2 still gives the same conclusion as similarity factor f2; Values of M-Distance varies a lot and appears that <=3 could be a similar case, and over 30 could be a different case.
Conclusions
: Based on current review experiences and examined cases, bootstrapping f2 is recommended when the similarity factor f2 is around 50 or large batch variability is observed; At the large batch variability cases, new cut-off points may be proposed.
Testing batches would be penalized by larger batch variability.
M-Distance is another alternative approach for dissolution profile comparisons. Its values also depends on the batch variability.
The cut-off point is required for further deep examinations, particularly, M-Distance values at different batch variability and bootstrapping f2 around 50.
18
Problems encountered with M-distance: Convergence issue with Inverse of Σ 𝑝𝑜𝑜𝑙𝑒𝑑 , Proposal: To compute the increment M-Distance 𝑅 𝑖𝑛𝑐𝑟𝑒𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡_𝑡 = 𝑅 1 , 𝑅 2 − 𝑅 1 , … , 𝑅 𝑡−1 − 𝑅 𝑡 𝑇 𝑖𝑛𝑐𝑟𝑒𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡_𝑡 = (𝑇 1 , 𝑇 2 − 𝑇 1 , … , 𝑇 𝑡−1 − 𝑇 𝑡 ) Σ 𝑖𝑛𝑐𝑟𝑒𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡_𝑅 = 𝐶𝑜𝑣 𝑅 𝑖𝑛𝑐𝑟𝑒𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡 𝑡 , Σ 𝑖𝑛𝑐𝑟𝑒𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡_𝑇 = 𝐶𝑜𝑣(𝑇 𝑖𝑛𝑐𝑟𝑒𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡 𝑡 ) The proposed increment M-Distance can help us solve the convergence problem caused by highly correlated data (cumulative measurements); The interpretation of increment M-Distance: the distance between the increment vectors from the testing and reference batches.
19
References: • FDA Guidance: Dissolution Testing of Immediate Release Solid Oral Dosage Forms, 1997 • FDA Guidance: SUPAC for Immediate Release Solid Oral Dosage Forms, 1995 • FDA Guidance: Extended Release Oral Dosage Forms: Development, Evaluation, and Application of In Vitro/In Vivo Correlation, 1997 • In Vitro Dissolution Profile Comparison, Tsong et. al, 2003 • Assessment of Similarity Between Dissolution Profiles, Ma et. al, 2000 • In Vitro Dissolution Profile Comparison – Statistics and Analysis of the Similarity Factor f2, V. Shah et. al, 1998 • Statistical Assessment of Mean Differences Between Dissolution Data Sets, Tsong et al, 1996 20
Acknowledgement: FDA Collaborators and Co-workers: • ONDQA: Dr. John Duan, Dr. Tien-Mien Chen • OGD: Dr. Pradeep M. Sathe • OB: Dr. Yi Tsong 21
22
Back Up 23
90% Confidence Region of M-Distance:
K
y
x test
x ref
T
S pooled
1
y
x test
x ref
F P
, 2
n
p
1 ,.
90 ,where
K
2
n
p
1 2
n
2
P
By Langrage Multiplier Method
y
1 *
y
2 *
x test
x test
x ref x ref
1 1
F P
, 2
n
p
1 ,.
90
K
x test
x ref
T
S pooled
1
x test
x ref
F P
, 2
n
p
1 ,.
90
K
x test
x ref
T
S pooled
1
x test
x ref
DM u
DM l
max min
y
1 *
T S pooled
1
y
1 *
y
1 *
T S pooled
1
y
1 * , ,
y
2 *
T S pooled
1
y
2 *
y
2 *
T S pooled
1
y
2 * 24