Braithwaite Gavin J C, Daley Michael J, Toledo-Velasquez David
a Cambridge Polymer Group , Boston , MA , USA.
b OrthogenRx, Inc. PA Biotechnology Center of Bucks County , Doylestown , PA , USA.
J Biomater Sci Polym Ed. 2016;27(3):235-46. doi: 10.1080/09205063.2015.1119035. Epub 2015 Dec 31.
Hyaluronic acid of various molecular weights has been in use for the treatment of osteoarthritis knee pain for decades. Worldwide, these products are regulated as either as drugs or devices and in some countries as both. In the US, this class of products is regulated as Class III medical devices, which places specific regulatory requirements on developers of these materials under a Pre-Market Approval process, typically requiring data from prospective randomized controlled clinical studies. In 1984 pharmaceutical manufacturers became able to file an Abbreviated New Drug Application for approval of a generic drug, thus establishing standards for demonstrating equivalence to an existing chemical entity. Recently, the first biosimilar, or 'generic biologic', was approved. Biosimilars are biological products that are approved by the FDA because they are 'highly similar' to a reference product, and have been shown to have no clinically meaningful differences from the reference product. For devices, Class II medical devices have a pathway for declaring equivalence to an existing product by filing a 510 k application for FDA clearance. However, until recently no equivalent regulatory pathway was available to Class III devices. In this paper, we consider the critical mechanical performance parameters for intra-articular hyaluronic products to demonstrate indistinguishable characteristics. Analogous to the aforementioned pathways that allow for a demonstration of equivalence, we examine these parameters for an existing, marketed device and compare molecular weight and rheological properties of multiple batches of a similar product. We propose that this establishes a scientific rationale for establishing Class III medical device equivalence.
几十年来,各种分子量的透明质酸一直用于治疗膝骨关节炎疼痛。在全球范围内,这些产品被归类为药品或医疗器械,在一些国家则两者兼具。在美国,这类产品被归类为III类医疗器械,这对这些材料的开发者在上市前批准程序下提出了特定的监管要求,通常需要来自前瞻性随机对照临床研究的数据。1984年,制药制造商能够提交简化新药申请以批准仿制药,从而确立了证明与现有化学实体等效性的标准。最近,首个生物类似药,即“生物仿制药”获得批准。生物类似药是经美国食品药品监督管理局(FDA)批准的生物制品,因为它们与参考产品“高度相似”,并且已证明与参考产品在临床上没有有意义的差异。对于医疗器械,II类医疗器械有一条通过提交510(k)申请以获得FDA批准来声明与现有产品等效的途径。然而,直到最近,III类医疗器械还没有等效的监管途径。在本文中,我们考虑了关节内透明质酸产品的关键机械性能参数,以证明其难以区分的特性。类似于上述允许证明等效性的途径,我们检查了现有上市器械的这些参数,并比较了多批次类似产品的分子量和流变学特性。我们认为,这为确立III类医疗器械的等效性建立了科学依据。