4.6 Review

Liposomal Drug Product Development and Quality: Current US Experience and Perspective

期刊

AAPS JOURNAL
卷 19, 期 3, 页码 632-641

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1208/s12248-017-0049-9

关键词

control strategy; critical quality attributes; doxil; in-process controls; lipid excipient; liposomal drug product; liposome submission

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Research in the area of liposomes has grown substantially in the past few decades. Liposomes are lipid bilayer structures that can incorporate drug substances to modify the drug's pharmacokinetic profile thereby improving drug delivery. The agency has received over 400 liposomal drug product submissions (excluding combination therapies), and there are currently eight approved liposomal drug products on the US market. In order to identify the pain points in development and manufacturing of liposomal drug products, a retrospective analysis was performed from a quality perspective on submissions for new and generic liposomal drug products. General analysis on liposomal drug product submissions was also performed. Results indicated that 96% of the submissions were Investigational New Drug (IND) applications, 3% were New Drug Applications (NDAs), and the remaining 1% was Abbreviated New Drug Applications (ANDAs). Doxorubicin hydrochloride was the most commonly used drug substance incorporated into the liposomes (31%). The majority of the liposomal products were administered via intravenous route (84%) with cancer (various types) being the most common indication (63%). From a quality perspective, major challenges during the development of liposomal drug products included identification and (appropriate) characterization of critical quality attributes of liposomal drug products and suitable control strategies during product development. By focusing on these areas, a faster and more efficient development of liposomal drug products may be achieved. Additionally, in this way, the drug review process for such products can be streamlined.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据