Determining Whether to Submit an ANDA or a 505(b)(2) Application in USFDA Part II
SUBMISSION THROUGH THE APPROPRIATE ABBREVIATED APPROVAL PATHWAY
A. Regulatory Considerations for ANDAs and 505(b)(2) Applications
FDA generally will refuse to file a 505(b)(2) application for a drug that is a duplicate of a listed drug and eligible for approval under section 505(j) of the FD&C Act.19 If FDA approves a pharmaceutical equivalent to a proposed product before a 505(b)(2) application is submitted, such that the proposed product would be a duplicate of that
pharmaceutically equivalent drug product and eligible for approval under section 505(j) of the FD&C Act, FDA will refuse to file the application as a 505(b)(2) application. However, if FDA approves a duplicate drug product after a 505(b)(2) application is submitted but before the 505(b)(2) application is approved, that application would remain eligible for approval as a 505(b)(2) application, and FDA would not require the applicant of the pending 505(b)(2)
application to withdraw the application and submit an ANDA.
2. Petitioned ANDAs
As noted in section II of this guidance, certain differences between an RLD and a proposed generic drug product may be permitted in an ANDA if these differences are the subject of an approved suitability petition. An applicant may submit a suitability petition to FDA requesting permission to submit an ANDA for a generic drug product that differs from an RLD in its route of administration, dosage form, or strength or that has one different active ingredient in a fixedcombination drug product. An ANDA citing a suitability petition that is pending or has been denied will not be received for review because the application lacks a legal basis for the submission.
FDA will approve a suitability petition unless, among other things, it determines that the safety and effectiveness of the proposed change from the RLD cannot be adequately evaluated without data from investigations that exceed what may be required for an ANDA or the petition is for a drug product for which a pharmaceutical equivalent has been approved in an NDA, including, for example, a 505(b)(2) application that referenced the same listed drug named in the suitability petition.
In the latter case, the ANDA applicant should instead refer to the approved pharmaceutical equivalent designated by the Agency as the RLD as the basis for submission of its ANDA. After approval of an NDA for a drug product that is a pharmaceutical equivalent to the drug product described in the suitability petition, the approved suitability petition (and listed drug described therein) may no longer be used as the basis for an ANDA
submission by applicants with pending ANDAs or by prospective ANDA applicants for that petitioned drug product.
In this scenario, an applicant with a pending ANDA will be required to submit a new ANDA that both identifies the pharmaceutically equivalent product as the RLD and complies with applicable regulatory requirements.
In some circumstances, an applicant may seek approval for multiple drug products containing the same active ingredient(s) when some of these products would qualify for approval under the section 505(j) pathway and some would qualify for approval under the 505(b)(2) pathway. In these circumstances, FDA has permitted an applicant to submit a single 505(b)(2) application for all such multiple drug products that are permitted to be bundled in a single NDA.
an applicant seeking approval for multiple strengths of a product, only some of which are included in the Orange Book as listed drugs, would not have to submit both an ANDA for the strengths listed in the Orange Book and a 505(b)(2) application for the new strengths; instead,the applicant may submit one 505(b)(2) application for all of the proposed strengths
B. Scientific Considerations for ANDAs and 505(b)(2) Applications . Type of Studies, Data, and Information Submitted in ANDAs Although ANDAs and certain 505(b)(2) applications rely on the Agency’s finding of safety and effectiveness for a listed drug, there may be differences in the types of studies, data, and information that may be necessary to support the approval of drug products proposed in ANDAs compared to 505(b)(2) applications. 505(b)(2) applicants have significant flexibility in the types of studies, data, and information they may submit in a 505(b)(2) NDA to support the requirements for NDA approval. The types of studies that may be submitted in a 505(b)(2) NDA may include clinical investigations to establish the safety and/or effectiveness of a product.
Generally, ANDA applicants also have significant flexibility in the types of studies, data, and information they may submit in an ANDA to support the requirements for ANDA approval, so long as clinical investigations are not submitted to establish the safety or effectiveness of a product.
For example, FDA has accepted limited confirmatory studies appropriate for petitioned ANDAs in an original ANDA, and FDA has reviewed pharmacodynamic data in determining active ingredient sameness.29 The precise scope and type of information necessary for approval will vary and may be the subject of discussion between the applicant and FDA during the drug development process.
If a clinical investigation (i.e., any experiment other than a bioavailability study in which a drug is administered or dispensed to, or used on, human subjects)31 is necessary to demonstrate the safety or effectiveness of a proposed drug product, generally this type of study goes beyond the scope of information that may be relied upon as necessary for approval in an ANDA. We recommend that a prospective ANDA applicant considering submission of an application that may require data that could be considered outside of the scope of the ANDA pathway contact the Office of Generic Drugs (OGD) prior to submission of an application to inform which type of application is appropriate.
2. Active Ingredient Sameness Evaluation
As stated in sections II. and III.A of this guidance, section 505(j) of the FD&C Act generally requires that a proposed generic drug product demonstrate that it is the same as the RLD with respect to active ingredient(s).
If the active ingredient in an applicant’s proposed drug product cannot be demonstrated to be the same as the active ingredient in the RLD by using the information and data that may be submitted in connection with an ANDA, the drug product should not be submitted for approval in an ANDA.
FDA has broad discretion to determine whether an ANDA applicant has submitted information sufficient for the Agency to reasonably conclude that the proposed drug product’s active ingredient is the same as the active ingredient in the RLD. That is, the statutory provisions outlining the contents of an ANDA do not describe the type or amount of information that an ANDA applicant must submit to demonstrate that the active ingredient in the proposed generic drug product is the same as the active ingredient in the RLD. In addition, in the preamble to the final rule to implement the Hatch-Waxman Amendments, FDA specifically rejected the adoption of requirements that active ingredients “exhibit the same physical and chemical characteristics [as the RLD], that no additional residues or impurities can result from the different manufacture or synthesis process, and that the stereochemical characteristics and solid state forms of the drug have not been altered.”35 Instead, FDA has adopted a more flexible approach.
In some instances, current limitations of scientific understanding and technology may preclude approval of an ANDA with the data permitted for submission in an ANDA, including, for example, with respect to establishing active ingredient sameness of a given product. As scientific understanding and technology evolve, though, FDA may be able to receive, review,and approve ANDAs where it previously lacked the scientific basis to do so. We therefore recommend that a prospective ANDA applicant with questions about determining active ingredient sameness contact OGD prior to submission of the application.
3. Intentional Differences Between the Proposed Drug Product and the RLD
a. Differences in formulation
Although section 505(j) of the FD&C Act generally requires that the active ingredient(s) in a proposed ANDA be the same as the active ingredient(s) in the RLD, certain differences in inactive ingredients are permissible. An ANDA must include information regarding the identity and quantity of all active and inactive ingredients of the proposed drug product (i.e., the formulation) and a characterization of any permitted differences between the formulations of the proposed drug product and the RLD, along with a justification demonstrating that the safety and effectiveness of the proposed drug product is not adversely affected by these differences.
For products for certain routes of administration, the types of changes to inactive ingredients that are permissible in an ANDA have been limited by regulation.
For example, in order to qualify for submission as an ANDA:
• Parenteral drug products generally must contain the same inactive ingredients and in the same concentrations as the RLD.
However, specific qualitative and quantitative changes from the RLD formulation are permitted in an ANDA for a parenteral drug product for certain inactive ingredients (i.e., preservatives, buffers, and antioxidants) that
are considered exception excipients.
All other inactive ingredients in a proposed parenteral drug product must be qualitatively and quantitatively the same (Q1/Q2 same) as the RLD.
• Ophthalmic drug products generally must be Q1/Q2 same as the RLD with respect to all of their inactive ingredients.
However, an ANDA for an ophthalmic drug product may contain differences from the RLD with respect to certain inactive ingredients (i.e.,preservatives, buffers, substances to adjust tonicity, or thickening agents), which are
considered exception excipients.
To note, for certain ophthalmic drug products,however, FDA has determined that, as a scientific matter, qualitative or quantitative deviations from the RLD in exception excipients may necessitate the need to conduct an additional in vivo bioequivalence study (e.g., bioequivalence study with pharmacokinetic endpoints, bioequivalence study with clinical endpoints, as appropriate).
• Otic drug products generally must be Q1/Q2 same as the RLD with respect to all of their inactive ingredients. However, otic drug products may contain differences with respect to the same exception excipients described for ophthalmic drug products.
When an ANDA applicant seeks approval of a parenteral, ophthalmic, or otic drug product that differs from the RLD in its exception excipients, the applicant must identify and characterize the differences and provide information demonstrating that these differences do not affect the safety or efficacy of the proposed drug product.
An applicant should consider submitting a 505(b)(2) application if the proposed drug product contains changes to its formulation that are not permissible in an ANDA. For example, a proposed parenteral drug product that contains an additional inactive ingredient not present in the RLD that cannot be considered an exception excipient would not be permitted in an ANDA under the regulations at 21 CFR 314.94(a)(9)(iii) but may be submitted in a 505(b)(2) application. Similarly, a proposed drug product that contains an excipient that would require
clinical investigations to establish safety of the excipient for use in a particular drug product,would also not be permitted in an ANDA but may be submitted in a 505(b)(2) application. We recommend that prospective ANDA applicants (1) consider both the ANDA regulatory requirements for formulations applicable to specific routes of administration and the data that would be scientifically necessary to support any permissible differences in inactive ingredients between the proposed product and the RLD and (2) contact OGD prior to submission of the
application to discuss questions about permissible differences in formulation.
b. Differences in bioequivalence and/or bioavailability An ANDA must contain information to show that the proposed drug product is bioequivalent to the RLD.49 A proposed drug product is bioequivalent to the RLD if
the rate and extent of absorption of the [proposed] drug do not show a significant difference from the rate and extent of absorption of the [RLD] when administered at the same molar dose of the therapeutic ingredient under similar experimental conditions in either a single dose or multiple doses.
Similarly, the definition of bioequivalence in the regulations states, in part, that [w]here there is an intentional difference in rate (e.g., in certain extended-release dosage forms), certain pharmaceutical equivalents or alternatives may be considered bioequivalent if there is no significant difference in the extent to which
the active ingredient or moiety from each product becomes available at the site of drug action.
An application for a proposed drug product where the rate and/or extent of absorption exceed, or are otherwise different from, the 505(j) standards for bioequivalence may be submitted under the 505(b)(2) pathway and may require studies to show the safety and efficacy of the proposed product at the different rate and/or extent of delivery.
However, FDA generally will not file a 505(b)(2) application for a drug product whose only difference from a listed drug is that: (1) [t]he extent to which its active ingredient(s) is absorbed or otherwise made available to the site of action is less than that of the listed drug; or (2) [t]he rate at which its active ingredient(s) is absorbed or otherwise made available to the site of action is unintentionally less than that of the listed drug.
Therefore, a 505(b)(2) application is not appropriate for a drug product that should have been submitted under the ANDA pathway but would have failed to meet all of the 505(j) standards (e.g., the proposed drug product is a duplicate of a listed drug but is unintentionally less bioavailable and fails to demonstrate bioequivalence to the listed drug). Prospective ANDA applicants should contact OGD to discuss any differences in bioequivalence and bioavailability prior to submission of the application.
c. Differences in conditions of use
An application submitted under section 505(j) of the FD&C Act must include a statement that the conditions of use prescribed, recommended, or suggested in the labeling for the proposed drug product have been previously approved for the RLD.55 If an applicant has made changes to a proposed 505(j) drug product such that the proposed labeling of the drug product does not reflect the previously approved conditions of use as described in the labeling of the RLD cited in the application (e.g., the applicant has proposed a new indication for the proposed drug product),the application could not be approved as an ANDA.
However, FDA will not refuse to approve an ANDA whose labeling excludes (or “carves out”) conditions of use approved for the RLD that may be omitted from the proposed ANDA labeling because of patents or exclusivity.57 We recommend that prospective ANDA applicants considering a change that could be construed as a
change to the conditions of use of the RLD contact OGD before submission.
4. Other Differences
As noted in this guidance, some differences are permitted between an RLD and a proposed product in an ANDA. However, products that differ considerably from the RLD are generally not candidates for approval under the section 505(j) pathway. If differences between a proposed product and its RLD may require submission of data that could be considered beyond the scope of studies that can be reviewed in an ANDA, a prospective ANDA applicant should contact OGD prior to submission of an application to inform which type of application is appropriate.
a. Device Constituents
FDA recognizes that an applicant of a proposed generic drug-device combination product may choose to develop a device constituent part that differs in design from the RLD. We recommend that prospective applicants intending to submit an ANDA for a proposed combination product that includes both a drug constituent part and a delivery device constituent part review the draft guidance for industry Comparative Analyses and Related Comparative Use Human Factors Studies for a Drug-Device Combination Product Submitted in an ANDA (January 2017).
An ANDA must contain
information to show that the labeling proposed for the new drug is the same as the labeling approved for the [RLD]…except for changes required because of differences approved under a [suitability petition]… or because the new drug and the [RLD] are produced or distributed by different manufacturers.
The regulations at 21 CFR 314.94(a)(8)(iv) recognize that certain differences in labeling between generic drug products and RLDs may be appropriate because the generic drug product and the RLD are produced or distributed by different manufacturers.
For example, such differences
may include “differences in expiration date, formulation, bioavailability, or pharmacokinetics,labeling revisions made to comply with current FDA labeling guidelines or other guidance, or omission of an indication or other aspect of labeling protected by patent or accorded exclusivity.”63 Although the regulations indicate that these identified examples are not the only acceptable differences in labeling between the generic drug product and the RLD, certain differences in labeling will determine whether the proposed drug product should be submitted in
an ANDA or a 505(b)(2) application. For example, an ANDA is not appropriate if the proposed drug product would have a new indication or a new dosing regimen as compared to the RLD (e.g., a proposed product would be administered once daily even though the RLD is labeled for administration twice daily)
FDA reviews differences in labeling as part of the ANDA review process. If the differences in labeling between the products are such that they would require clinical investigations to establish the safety or effectiveness of the proposed product or are significant enough that the labeling no longer satisfies the “same” labeling requirement, the proposed drug product should be submitted under section 505(b) of the FD&C Act. In reference to labeling carve-outs as discussed in section IV.B.3.c of this guidance, FDA considers whether an ANDA product that omits the protected information from its labeling would be rendered less safe or effective than the RLD for its remaining non-protected conditions of use.
V. REQUESTING ASSISTANCE FROM FDA
If an applicant is developing a product that is intended to have the same active ingredient(s),conditions of use, route of administration, dosage form, strength, and (with certain permissible differences) labeling as an RLD and has questions about whether the proposed product would be appropriate for submission in an ANDA, the applicant may submit controlled correspondence to OGD or request a pre-ANDA meeting with OGD. Controlled correspondence is appropriate if an applicant has a specific and targeted inquiry about the generic drug development process. A pre-ANDA meeting is appropriate for a prospective applicant seeking a dialogue with the
Agency on a particular matter that would fall outside the scope of controlled correspondence.
Requests for pre-ANDA meetings should be submitted to [email protected]
If an applicant is developing a product that has a different active ingredient, conditions of use,route of administration, dosage form, strength, or labeling than a listed drug and/or is proposing a clinical study program and has questions about submission of an application through the 505(b)(2) pathway, the applicant should contact the appropriate Office of New Drugs review division for assistance
Mr. Shiv Kumar is the Author and founder of pharmaceutical guidance, he is a pharmaceutical Professional from India having more than 14 years of rich experience in pharmaceutical field.
During his career, he work in quality assurance department with multinational company’s i.e Zydus Cadila Ltd, Unichem Laboratories Ltd, Indoco remedies Ltd, Panacea Biotec Ltd, Nectar life Science Ltd. During his experience, he face may regulatory Audit i.e. USFDA, MHRA, ANVISA, MCC, TGA, EU –GMP, WHO –Geneva, ISO 9001-2008 and many ROW Regularities Audit i.e.Uganda,Kenya, Tanzania, Zimbabwe. He is currently leading a regulatory pharmaceutical company as a head Quality. You can join him by Email, Facebook, Google+, Twitter and YouTube