Due to complex interdependent relationships affecting their microstructure, topical semisolid drug formulations face unique obstacles to the development of generics compared to other drug products. Traditionally, establishing bioequivalence is based on comparative clinical trials, which are expensive and often associated with high degrees of variability and low sensitivity in detecting formulation differences. To address this issue, leading regulatory agencies have aimed to advance guidelines relevant to topical generics, ultimately accepting different non-clinical, in vitro/in vivo surrogate methods for topical bioequivalence assessment. Unfortunately, according to both industry and academia stakeholders, these efforts are far from flawless, and often upsurge the potential for result variability and a number of other failure modes. This paper offers a comprehensive review of the literature focused on amending regulatory positions concerning the demonstration of (i) extended pharmaceutical equivalence and (ii) equivalence with respect to the efficacy of topical semisolids. The proposed corrective measures are disclosed and critically discussed, as they span from mere demands to widen the acceptance range (e.g., from ±10% to ±20%/±25% for rheology and in vitro release parameters highly prone to batch-to-batch variability) or reassess the optimal number of samples required to reach the desired statistical power, but also rely on specific data modeling or novel statistical approaches.
Keywords: equivalence with respect to efficacy; extended pharmaceutical equivalence; generic semisolid drug product; in vitro permeation testing; in vitro release testing; microstructure; qualitative and quantitative composition; tape stripping.