Biowaiver for the Additional Strength

When developing oral solid dosage forms such as tablets, regulatory agencies often allow a biowaiver for lower strengths if the highest strength has already undergone a full bioequivalence (BE) study. This pathway saves time, reduces costs, and avoids unnecessary exposure of subjects to clinical testing.

For instance, if the biobatch is the 20 mg strength, and you want approval for 10 mg and 5 mg strengths, a well-designed comparative dissolution study can support the waiver. But regulators like the USFDA, EMA, and WHO impose specific expectations to ensure scientific rigor. 

Why Biowaivers Matter

Biowaivers are crucial because they acknowledge that under certain conditions, a drug product's performance at different strengths can be predicted without needing to conduct a full clinical study for each strength. This is based on the principle that if the formulation is qualitatively and quantitatively similar (Q1/Q2) across strengths, and the in vitro dissolution profiles are comparable, then the in vivo performance is also likely to be similar.

How Biowaivers Save Time, Money, and Reduce Clinical Exposure

1. Time Savings:

1. Reduced Clinical Study Duration: A full BE study involves recruiting subjects, administering the drug, collecting blood samples over an extended period, and analyzing these samples. This is a time-consuming process. By waiving these studies for lower strengths, you significantly cut down on the overall development timeline.
2. Faster Regulatory Review: With fewer complex clinical data sets to review, regulatory agencies can often process biowaiver applications more quickly.

2. Cost Savings:

• Elimination of Clinical Study Costs: BE studies are incredibly expensive. Costs include subject recruitment, clinical site fees, drug administration, bioanalytical sample analysis, statistical analysis, and report writing. Eliminating these for multiple strengths leads to substantial financial savings.
• Reduced Resource Allocation: Less need for dedicated clinical trial staff, project managers, and bioanalytical laboratory resources.
• Faster Market Entry: Getting your drug to market sooner means you can start generating revenue earlier, offsetting development costs more quickly.

3. Reduced Clinical Exposure:

• Ethical Considerations: Every clinical study, no matter how safe, carries some level of risk for the participants. Biowaivers minimize the number of healthy volunteers or patients who need to be exposed to a drug purely for a BE study, aligning with ethical principles of minimizing harm.
• Resource Preservation: It conserves the limited resource of volunteers willing to participate in clinical trials, allowing them to contribute to studies that truly require human participation.

ALSO READ: Drug-Excipient Compatibility Study in Pharmaceutical Formulation

Below is a step-by-step guide on what you must do.

1. Formulation Proportionality (Q1/Q2)

The foundation of a successful biowaiver lies in formulation sameness across all strengths. Regulators want to ensure that the lower strengths are simply scaled-down versions of the highest strength without changes that might affect absorption.

• Qualitative Sameness (Q1): All strengths must contain the same excipients. If lactose, microcrystalline cellulose, magnesium stearate, or any other excipient is present in the 20 mg tablet, they must also be present in the 10 mg and 5 mg versions.
• Quantitative Proportionality (Q2): The ratios of drug substance to each excipient must remain constant. For example, if the 20 mg strength has 10% lactose, then the 10 mg and 5 mg tablets must also have 10% lactose. This ensures comparable dissolution, disintegration, and absorption.
• Permissible Deviations: Some flexibility is permitted for excipients used in very low levels, such as lubricants, glidants, colorants, or coating agents. Minor changes must be scientifically justified—for example, explaining that a slightly higher lubricant concentration was required to maintain manufacturability but does not impact release characteristics.

Failing to maintain Q1 and Q2 proportionality is one of the most common reasons for biowaiver rejection.

2. Dissolution Profile Comparison

Once formulation proportionality is established, the next step is to demonstrate comparable in vitro performance. This is done using comparative dissolution testing.

• Multi-point Dissolution: You typically need to perform dissolution testing at multiple time points (e.g., 5, 10, 15, 30, 45, 60 minutes).
• Multiple pH Conditions: Dissolution should be tested in at least three different pH conditions representing the physiological range of the GI tract (e.g., pH 1.2, 4.5, and 6.8). Surfactants might be required if the drug has low solubility.
• Paddle/Basket Method: Standardized apparatus (e.g., USP Apparatus 1 - basket, or Apparatus 2 - paddle) and rotation speeds are used.
• f2 Factor Calculation: The similarity factor (f2) is a common statistical tool used to compare dissolution profiles. An f2 value between 50 and 100 generally indicates similarity between two dissolution profiles.
• "Very Rapid" or "Rapid" Dissolution: Some guidances allow for a biowaiver if the drug product exhibits "very rapid" dissolution (e.g., >85% dissolved in 15 minutes) or "rapid" dissolution (>85% dissolved in 30 minutes) across all relevant pH conditions.

By keeping test conditions identical, any observed difference can be attributed to formulation rather than method variability.

3. Evaluate Dissolution Profiles

The comparative dissolution data are assessed against strict acceptance criteria. Two main scenarios are possible:

A. Rapidly Dissolving Products

If ≥85% of drug release occurs within 15 minutes in all three media for all strengths, the dissolution profiles are considered similar. No further statistical testing is required.

B. Slower Dissolving Products

If drug release is slower than 85% in 15 minutes, then you must calculate the similarity factor (f2):

• An f2 value between 50–100 confirms that the dissolution profiles are similar.
• f2 analysis must be conducted for each comparison:

1. 20 mg vs 10 mg
2. 20 mg vs 5 mg

This statistical comparison ensures that the release profiles are not significantly different over the dissolution time course.

4. Prepare the Regulatory Submission

• Justification: Clearly justify the biowaiver request based on BCS class, Q1/Q2 proportionality, and dissolution data.
• Data Presentation: Present all dissolution data (raw data, individual profiles, mean profiles, standard deviations, and f2 calculations) in a clear and organized manner.
• Batch Information: Include details of the batches used (manufacturing site, batch size, date of manufacture, stability data, etc.).
• Stability Data: Ensure stability data supports the proposed shelf life for all strengths.
• Drug Product Specifications: Include dissolution specifications for all strengths.

By meticulously following these steps and addressing all regulatory expectations, you can successfully leverage the biowaiver pathway for additional strengths, leading to more efficient and ethical drug development.

5. Outcome of a Successful Biowaiver

If you can demonstrate both:

• Formulation proportionality (Q1 and Q2)
• Dissolution similarity (rapid release or f2 ≥ 50)

Then the 10 mg and 5 mg strengths can be approved under biowaiver provisions. This means no additional in vivo BE studies are necessary.

This not only reduces development costs but also supports ethical principles by avoiding unnecessary clinical exposure of healthy volunteers.

ALSO READ: Quality by Test (QbT) and Quality by Design (QbD)