2.02 - Quality and Bioequivalence Guideline - Jul19 - v7 1
2.02 - Quality and Bioequivalence Guideline - Jul19 - v7 1
2.02 - Quality and Bioequivalence Guideline - Jul19 - v7 1
This guideline is intended to provide recommendations to applicants wishing to submit new registration applications as well
as variations. It represents the Authority’s current thinking on the safety, efficacy and quality of medicines. It is not intended
as an exclusive approach. SAHPRA reserves the right to request any additional information to establish the safety, efficacy
and quality of a medicine in keeping with the knowledge current at the time of evaluation. Alternative approaches may be
used but these should be scientifically and technically justified. The Authority is committed to ensure that all registered
medicines will be of the required safety, efficacy and quality. It is important that applicants adhere to the administrative
requirements to avoid delays in the processing and evaluation of applications.
Guidelines and application forms are available from the office of the Chief Executive Officer and the website.
Version 7
Table of Contents
1 Policy ................................................................................................................................... 6
4 Variations ............................................................................................................................ 8
5.4.4 Recognition..................................................................................................... 11
6.2.2 3.2.R.2 Parent API manufacturer / DMF Holder with various sites .................. 24
6.2.3 3.2.R.3 Certificate(s) of suitability with respect the Ph.Eur. (CEPs) Confirmation of
WHO API Prequalification (CPQ) .................................................................... 24
2.02_Quality and Bioequivalence Guideline_Jul19_v7 Page 2 of 35
Registration of Medicines Quality and Bioequivalence Guideline
List of abbreviations
API Active Pharmaceutical Ingredient
BCS Biopharmaceuticals Classification System
BTIF Bioequivalence Trial Information Form
CEP Certificate of Suitability to the monographs of the European Pharmacopoeia
CoA Certificate of Analysis
CPQ Confirmation of WHO API Prequalification
CTD Common Technical Document
EMA European Medicines Agency
FPP Finished Pharmaceutical Product
GCP Good Clinical Practice
GMP Good Manufacturing Practice
GRP Good Regulatory Practice
International Council for Harmonisation of Technical Requirements for Registration of
ICH
Pharmaceuticals for Human Use
IPRP International Pharmaceutical Regulators Programme
LOD Limit of Detection
ME&R Medicines Evaluation and Research
MHRA Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (UK)
NCE New Chemical Entity
P&A Pharmaceutical and Analytical
PD Product Dossier
Ph.Eur European Pharmacopoeia
Post-reg. Post-registration
PPL Periplakin (protein coding gene)
PQ Pre-qualification
Pre-reg. Pre-registration
PSF Product Summary File
QIS Quality Information Summary
1 Policy
The South African Health Products Regulatory Authority (SAHPRA) has decided to harmonise certain
SAHPRA medicine policies and procedures with those of the European Medicines Agency (EMA).
These in turn are aligned to the framework of the International Council for Harmonisation of Technical
Requirements for Registration of Pharmaceuticals for Human Use (ICH). By doing so, SAHPRA will
reflect global best practice in terms of the safety, quality and efficacy of health product regulation.
SAHPRA is adopting the EMA guidelines for quality and bioequivalence requirements and endorses
the principles contained therein. The EMA guidelines adopted in Section 3 below should be read in
conjunction with currently applicable SAHPRA guidelines stipulated in Section 2 below. However,
unless otherwise stated, the EMA guidelines take precedence over existing SAHPRA guidelines.
Where other guidelines (i.e. not EMA or SAHPRA) are specifically applicable, references have been
made thereto.
Please note: Unless mentioned otherwise, where EMA guidelines adopted in South Africa include
references to European Union (EU) legislation, the requirements contained in the referenced EU
legislation are not applicable to the evaluation of medicines by SAHPRA. South African legislation will
apply wherever relevant and current.
Please see Section 6.1 for direction on alignment between EMA, SAHPRA and SADC stability
guidelines
Current versions are linked below; however, these are subject to updates and the latest published
non-draft version should always be referred to.
At its discretion, SAHPRA may recognise guidance from the WHO, US FDA and other regulatory
authorities with which SAHPRA aligns itself. However, applicants are advised to prepare submissions
in line with the new guidelines, read in conjunction with applicable SAHPRA guidelines listed in
Section 2.
o Active substance
o Manufacturing
o Impurities
o Excipient labelling
o Packaging
o Stability
o Pharmaceutical development
o Quality by Design
o Lifecycle management
Please note that a typed version of specifications and standard test procedure will only be accepted
if version controlled, dated and signed.
4 Variations
SAHPRA will adopt the EU variation classification guidelines for orthodox human and veterinary
medicines1 in full. Please see SAHPRA’s Variations Addendum for Orthodox Medicines for more
information about the application of the EU variation classification.
5 Review pathways
a) Full review
b) Abridged review
c) Verified review
d) Recognition
Review pathways (b), (c) and (d) represent reliance-based evaluations. The World Health
Organisation defines reliance (link here, page 15) as “[t]he act whereby the regulatory authority in one
jurisdiction may take into account and give significant weight to – i.e. totally or partially rely upon –
evaluations performed by another regulatory authority or trusted institution in reaching its own
decision. The relying authority remains responsible and accountable for decisions taken, even when
it relies on the decisions and information of others.”
1. Any guidance regarding complementary and biological medicines, as well as medical devices, referenced in
the EU variations guidelines is not applicable to SAHPRA – existing guidelines will apply.
2.02_Quality and Bioequivalence Guideline_Jul19_v7 Page 8 of 35
Registration of Medicines Quality and Bioequivalence Guideline
To qualify for a reliance evaluation pathway, a product being applied for must be registered by one or
more of the recognised regulatory authorities (RRAs) with which SAHPRA aligns itself. SAHPRA will
leverage evaluation efforts done by RRAs in order to make its evaluation process more efficient and
enhance market access. SAHPRA’s current RRAs include:
European Medicines Agency Decentralised Procedure (EMA DCP) (no restrictions on which
member state acts as the reference member state)
Health Canada
Two additional procedures can be used for reliance / collaborative review, which are not strictly
regulatory authorities:
Reliance is applicable for both new registration and variation applications (Type IB and
Type II).
Reliance for Clinical and ME&R is applied independently, i.e. the review types selected by the
units could differ based on unit-specific document requirements and the availability thereof.
The application submitted for registration by SAHPRA should be the same as the most
updated product on record at the RRA, i.e. all approved variations for the RRA’s registered
product should be incorporated in the application submitted for registration by SAHPRA.
Pending variations with the RRA should not be included in the application submitted to
SAHPRA in order for the application to qualify for reliance.
All decisions regarding final evaluation pathway (i.e. full review or reliance-based review) as
well as the extent of reliance on the RRA’s evaluation of the product being applied for are at
the discretion of SAHPRA, based on the documents (and quality thereof) available for reliance-
based evaluation.
Any and all decisions regarding approval and final registration will be made by SAHPRA, in
consideration of multiple factors including an RRA registration.
A full review involves a thorough review of all aspects of the dossier, including:
All applications for products / variations that have not been registered / approved by an RRA, or that
lack sufficient reliance documentation, will be considered for a full review. To reiterate, both new
registrations and Type IB and Type II variations, for NCEs and generics, which meet these criteria will
be considered for a full review.
Validation by SAHPRA to ensure that the product application submitted for registration by
SAHPRA is the same as the product registered by the specified RRA
Evaluation of specific aspects of the dossier, depending on the type of application submitted
The abridged review process does not involve an abbreviated application – all data and information
required for a full review should be submitted, i.e. the full CTD module structure, as well as the SCoRE
document. Evaluators may still wish to review data in the dossier as required.
i. For a new registration application for a generic medicine already registered by an RRA
Applicants are required to follow SAHPRA’s process for the WHO Collaborative
Registration Procedure
iii. Backlog-specific: For a new registration application for a generic or NCE medicine that has
received prior P&A Committee approval, where any information relevant to P&A Committee
approval has been updated since approval
iv. For a Type II variation where the variation applied for has already been approved by an RRA
Validation by SAHPRA to ensure that the product application submitted for registration by
SAHPRA is the same as the product registered by the specified RRA
The verified review process does not involve an abbreviated application – all data and information
required for a full review should be submitted, i.e. the full CTD module structure, as well as the SCoRE
document. Evaluators may still wish to review data in the dossier as required.
i. For a new registration application for an NCE medicine already registered by an RRA
ii. Backlog-specific: For a new registration application for a generic or NCE medicine that has
received prior P&A Committee approval, where Module 1, 2 or 3 has not been updated since
approval (i.e. the information relevant to the prior P&A Committee approval has not changed)
iii. For a Type IB variation where the variation applied for has already been approved by an RRA
5.4.4 Recognition
SAHPRA is currently in the process of negotiating recognition agreements with RRAs. Once such an
agreement is in place, SAHPRA will publish a framework for the practical implementation thereof. The
guiding principle is that applications approved by RRAs with which SAHPRA shares a recognition
agreement may not need to be evaluated separately by SAHPRA. Please note that this is not to be
confused with collaborative / work-sharing procedures, e.g. Zazibona.
To qualify for a reliance-based review, an applicant needs to submit additional documentation to the
documentation required for a full review.
Applicable types of
Document required
applications
Completed abridged review template 5.4.2 i, ii
Completed verified review template 5.4.3 i
Full, unredacted assessment / evaluation reports from the RRA
where the product is registered, or
If the applicant cannot obtain full, unredacted assessment /
evaluation reports from the RRA where the product is registered, the
Letter of access (Appendix in the General Information Guideline –
2.01) must be completed, and
Details of the outcomes of the application in all jurisdictions where it
has been submitted, and
Foreign registration certificate(s), and 5.4.2 i, iv
SmPC, a copy of the patient information leaflet (PIL) and label of the 5.4.3 i, iii
product that has been registered by the RRA, and
If available: initial scientific assessments, regulatory correspondence
with the sponsor / applicant, follow-up assessments, and any other
documentation from the RRA related to the final registration
decision, and
If available and where applicable: risk management plans and on-
site inspection reports (or equivalent), for example GCP / GRP.
Does not include the data package filed with the RRA
5.4.2 iv
Letter of approval from the RRA
5.4.3 iii
5.4.2 i, ii
Declaration: Sameness (Appendix 2)
5.4.3 i
5.4.2 iii
Declaration: Previous P&A Committee approval (Appendix 3)
5.4.3 ii
Additional documentation requirements for the various types of applications may be stipulated in other
sections of this guideline or other guidelines.
Additional documentation requirements for WHO PQ products are detailed in SAHPRA’s process for
the WHO Collaborative Registration Procedure.
Please note that if the full, unredacted assessment / evaluation reports from the RRA where
the product is registered are in a language which is not English, certified translated versions
need to be provided as per SAHPRA guidelines.
Please note that full, unredacted assessment / evaluation reports from the RRA where the
product is registered should at least include safety, efficacy and quality report(s) prepared by
the RRA upon which the registration decision for the health product was based.
If full, unredacted assessment / evaluation reports from the RRA are not provided by the
applicant, SAHPRA may contact the RRA to obtain them, provided the Letter of access
(Appendix in the General Information Guideline) has been provided. However, SAHPRA does
not take responsibility for guaranteeing the obtainment of these reports. If the reports are not
obtained, the application in question will most likely default to a full review, extending
evaluation time.
SAHPRA’s Stability Guideline remains applicable. However, in keeping with regional and international
best practice, applicants can refer to guidance on Module 3.2.P.8 from:
EMA
Applicants can choose to follow the requirements of SAHPRA, SADC or EMA’s Stability Guideline,
as long as this is clearly stated in the Stability Protocol. This does not apply to products applied for
through reliance on the Zazibona collaborative process for evaluation. In this case, the SADC Stability
Guideline must be adhered to.
Regarding the requirement for stability data for generics, the current SAHPRA stability guideline
requires a minimum of 6 months’ long-term and 3 months’ accelerated stability data for a generic
application. However, SAHPRA would prefer that 12 months’ long term (and 6 months’ accelerated)
stability data is included in the new registration application to facilitate longer retest periods.
SAHPRA will, in time, harmonise its Stability Guideline to ensure clarity on what specific requirements
should be followed. Until further communication the above approach is acceptable.
2.02_Quality and Bioequivalence Guideline_Jul19_v7 Page 13 of 35
Registration of Medicines Quality and Bioequivalence Guideline
SCOPE
This module addresses the pharmaceutical and biological availability for generic applications
and NCE line extensions with special reference to the purpose of the study(ies), the reference
product(s) and the overall conclusion.
i) Partial exemption from the requirements of 3.2.R.1 and 5.3.1 may be applicable if efficacy
and safety are intended to be established by clinical data (or for other reasons as
determined by the SAHPRA), provided that clinical trials have been conducted with the
same formulation as the one being applied for, in which case:
The pharmaceutical availability profile(s) of the API(s) in the final formulation being
applied for, for which exemption or partial exemption is justified, should specifically be
demonstrated, e.g. the dissolution profiles for solid oral, oral suspension and parenteral
suspension products should be included in accordance with the Dissolution guideline,
and/or other relevant data provided to unequivocally characterise the formulation used
in the clinical trials.
ii) If clinical evidence in support of efficacy is not submitted, or if the final formulation being
applied for is not the same as that used in clinical trials, studies and data to demonstrate
the pharmaceutical and/or biological availability / equivalence of the product should be
included.
iii) If in the opinion of the applicant no data are required to substantiate efficacy (e.g.
parenteral solutions), clearly state the rationale for accepting safety and efficacy and
include a discussion on the excipients (refer to EMA guideline on the investigation of
bioequivalence), and a comparison of final product characteristics in 3.2.R.1.4.2.
iv) One of the following methods depending on the relevancy may be used
Bioavailability
Dissolution
Disintegration
Blanching test
Any other method provided the rationale for submitting the particular method is included.
The above methods are subject to change based on finalisation of EMA guidelines
addressing specific routes of administration.
v) Data submitted should always be comparative, except as stated above under i), when
product characterisation is submitted.
Refer to the EU Bioequivalence guideline, SAHPRA dissolution guideline and EMA reflection
paper on the dissolution specification for generic oral immediate release products
For new registration generic applications, SAHPRA requires the completion of a Bioequivalence
Trial Information Form (BTIF), designed to provide a summary of a bioequivalence study
submitted as part of a product dossier. The completed BTIF will be used by the evaluator to
facilitate more rapid and effective evaluation of the bioequivalence study. If applicable, please
include a completed BTIF in MS Word format in the working documents folder.
b) In vitro dissolution
The studies should be carried out in accordance with the SAHPRA Dissolution guideline and
the EMA reflection paper specified above. However, the stringent EMA criteria with respect to
time points after > 85% dissolution is achieved (i.e. required for both test and reference
products) do not need to be adhered to.
c) Disintegration
Sucralfate.
The disintegration test included for Nutritional Supplements in the USP, or in the Ph Eur should
be used for the vitamins.
The general disintegration test included in the USP/Ph Eur may be used for the other
substances.
Acid neutralising capacity may be used as proof of efficacy for products with an antacid or acid
neutralising claim. The acid neutralising capacity test included in the USP should be used.
Microbial growth inhibition zones may be used as proof of efficacy for simple solution topical
formulations with a bacteriostatic/bacteriocidal/antiseptic claim.
Proof of release by membrane diffusion will not be accepted as proof of efficacy alone, unless data
are presented that show a correlation between release through a membrane and clinical efficacy.
Particle size distribution may be used in support of proof of efficacy for inhalations. The
Anderson sampler or equivalent apparatus should be used. In addition appropriate information
should be submitted to provide evidence of clinical safety and efficacy.
h) Blanching test
The blanching test may be used as proof of efficacy for topical dosage forms containing topical
corticosteroids.
STUDY PRODUCTS
A sufficient number of retention samples of both test and reference products used in the
bioequivalence or other studies, should be kept for one year in excess of the accepted shelf-
life, or two years after completion of the trial or until approval, whichever is longer, in order to
allow re-testing if so required by SAHPRA. A complete audit trail of procurement, storage,
transport and use of both the test and reference products should be recorded.
The batch used in the bioequivalence or other studies should satisfy the following requirements:
i) The batch size should be a minimum of 100 000 units or at least 10% of the production
batch, whichever is greater. If the batch size is less than 100 000 units, the use of a
smaller batch size should be motivated/justified.
ii) If the production batch size is smaller than 100 000 units, a full production batch should
be used.
iii) A high level of assurance should be provided that the product and process used in the
production of the product will be feasible on an industrial scale. If the product is subjected
to further scale-up, this should be validated appropriately.
Copies of the labelling (label(s) and patient information leaflet / professional information) for
the reference as well as the innovator product marketed in South Africa should be provided in
3.2.R.1.2 except as under point a)(iii) below, in which case a SAHPRA approved patient
information leaflet / professional information for a generic or similar product should be
submitted if available.
If a different chemical form is used, it must be confirmed that the safety / efficacy profile is not
altered (3.2.R.1.1.11). The confirmation may be documented / with bibliographical evidence.
If well known (e.g. hydrochloride, maleate, nitrate, stearate), reference to a pharmacopoeia
accepted by SAHPRA may be acceptable.
Product strengths not available in South Africa may be applied for and/or used in biostudies
provided that the dose range is approved/registered in South Africa.
The reference product should be an innovator product registered by SAHPRA and should be
preferably procured in South Africa. An exception is an “OLD MEDICINE” that may be used as
a reference product when no other such product has been registered provided that it is available
on the South African market. If more than one such product is available the market leader
should be used as the reference (e.g. IMS database). Applicant has to submit evidence to
substantiate market leadership claim.
The following options for selection of the reference product are listed in order of preference:
ii) the innovator product, registered in South Africa, for which a marketing authorisation has
been granted by the health authority of a country with which SAHPRA aligns itself (see
General Information guideline 3.1.4), and which is to be purchased from that market; or
iii) a product from the latest edition of the WHO International comparator products for
equivalent assessment of interchangeable multisource (generic) products QAS/05.143.
The primary manufacturing site is indicated in the WHO comparator list, and the
comparator is to be purchased in that country, or;
iv) in the case that no innovator product can be identified – within the context of (i)–(iii) above,
the choice of the reference must be made carefully and must be comprehensively justified
by the applicant.
Either single entity products administered concurrently (in the case of clinically justifiable
combinations), or
In the former instance, immediate release oral dosage forms containing a single API may be
used as the reference. These reference products may include “OLD MEDICINES”.
3.2.R.1.1 Overview
3.2.R.1.1.1 Country where developed, company developed by, test product synonyms.
Give a brief introductory description of the development of the test product, the
innovator and test product synonyms
3.2.R.1.1.3 The purpose of the study or studies (more than one may be applicable)
Innovator product
3.2.R.1.1.6 Confirmation that the data submitted have been obtained with the formulation and
manufacturing process being applied for.
Please note: If the product being applied for is not identical to the test product
used in the biostudy (i.e. if changes have been made to the product), the applicant
is required to submit data to confirm essential similarity between the product being
applied for and the test product used in the bioequivalence study. The data should
include, but not be limited to, the following:
3.2.R.1.1.7 Confirmation that the test product (all strengths) was manufactured by the same
manufacturer and site applied for.
If the manufacturer or site being applied for is different to that of the test product
the relevant requirements in accordance with the Variations guideline should be
complied, and the dissolution, stability and validation data included in 3.2.R.1.4,
3.2.P.8 and 3.2.P.3.5 respectively.
3.2.R.1.1.8 Confirmation that the test product was manufactured with API(s) manufactured by
the same API manufacturer as being applied for.
3.2.R.1.1.9 A statement whether in vivo-in vitro correlation from the data was obtained by the
method(s) used, if applicable.
3.2.R.1.1.10 Motivation for the use of the particular reference product [Refer to Selection of
Reference Products 2a above] The choice of reference product should be justified
by the applicant. Reference products registered in South Africa but procured
in another country, the health regulatory authority of which SAHPRA aligns
itself with (“foreign” reference product).
1) The name and address of the manufacturing site where the reference
product is manufactured.
1) Full details of the reference product(s) used as the standard for reference
purposes (including e.g. the applicant, proprietary name, lot number,
expiry date).
2) If the reference product is registered but not procured in South Africa, the
labelling / SmPC / patient information leaflet of the reference product
translated into English if not in English, as well as the professional
information / patient information leaflet of the relevant innovator product in
South Africa.
3) Full details of the test product (including e.g. the applicant, proprietary name,
lot number, expiry date).
4) Assay of test and reference products. The assay of the test and reference
products should not differ by more than 5 % in assay unless justified.
6) Certificates of Analysis for the test and reference products analysed using
the control procedures for description, assay, impurities, content uniformity
and dissolution proposed in the submission for the test product. Include in
3.2.R.1.3.
Example, may be adapted as appropriate to include the innovator product in South Africa or
other information
e.g. if the biostudy reference product is not the innovator registered and on the market in South
Africa an extra column for the details of the innovator product in South Africa corresponding
to that of the biostudy reference product is appropriate. Extra rows may be included as
required to reflect e.g. more detailed dissolution results or similarity factor values, or page
numbers of documents.
Dissolution results
Comparative dissolution
Batch no and expiry date
Assay results %
Comp. dissolution results
Similarity f2
Source of API if known/relevant if known/relevant **
Batch size if known/relevant if known/relevant
Product status Clinical trial Clinical trial
formulation or formulation or
Innovator product Innovator product or
or Current formulation
Current formulation (for change of
(for change of formulation) as the
formulation) as the case may be
case may be
CoAs, test and reference 3.2.R.1.3 p 3.2.R.1.3 p 3.2.R.1.3 p
products and API of test
product study batch
Patient information leaflet 3.2.R.1.2 p 3.2.R.1.2 p Module 1.3
/professional information /
SmPC
3.2.R.1.1.13 The formulation of each of the dosage strengths of the test product(s) in tabular
form in the case of an application for a biowaiver of proportionally similar dosage
strengths.
3.2.R.1.1.14 A discussion and conclusion of the outcomes of each of the studies and other
relevant information to support and justify acceptance of product efficacy.
3.2.R.1.1.16 References
1) Package inserts
3) Qualitative formulation,
different formulation
3.2.R.1.4.2 1) Other
If in the opinion of the applicant no data are required to substantiate efficacy (e.g.
parenteral solutions) the rationale for accepting safety and efficacy should be
clearly stated and include a discussion on the excipients (refer to Biostudies
guideline), and comparison of final product characteristics.
6.2.2 3.2.R.2 Parent API manufacturer / DMF Holder with various sites
2) In this case include valid CoAs from the API manufacturer or manufacturer of the
primary production lot (in case of Biological Medicines) for two batches issued
by each site.
6.2.3 3.2.R.3 Certificate(s) of suitability with respect the Ph.Eur. (CEPs) Confirmation of WHO
API Prequalification (CPQ)
A complete copy of the CEP (including any annexes) should be provided in this section. The CEP
holder on behalf of the FPP manufacturer or applicant who refers to the CEP should duly fill out the
declaration of access for the CEP to applicant/FPP manufacturer.
In addition, a written commitment should be included that the applicant will inform SAHPRA in the
event of changes, or if the CEP is withdrawn. It should also be acknowledged by the applicant that
withdrawal of the CEP would require additional consideration of the API data requirements (full
Module 3.2.S) to support the product dossier. The written commitment should accompany the copy
of the CEP.
Along with the CEP, the applicant should supply the following information in the dossier, with data
summarized in the QOS.
3.2.S.4.1 Specification - the specifications of the FPP manufacturer including all tests and
limits of the CEP and Ph.Eur. monograph and any additional tests and acceptance criteria that
are not controlled in the CEP and Ph.Eur. monograph, such as polymorphs and/or particle
size distribution.
3.2.S.4.2 / 3.2.S.4.3 Analytical procedures and validation – for any methods used by the FPP
manufacturer in addition to those in the CEP and Ph.Eur. monograph.
3.2.S.4.4 Batch analysis - results from two batches of at least pilot scale, demonstrating
compliance with the FPP manufacturer’s API specifications.
3.2.S.7 Stability - exception: where the CEP specifies a re-test period that is the same as or
of longer duration, and storage conditions which are the same or higher temperature and
humidity as proposed by the applicant.
In the case of sterile APIs, data on the sterilisation process of the API, including validation data, should
be included in the dossier.
A complete copy of the WHO Confirmation of API Prequalification document should be provided in
this section, together with the duly filled out authorisation box in the name of the FPP manufacturer
or applicant.
The applicant should supply the following information in the dossier, with data summarised in the QOS
3.2.S.2 In the case of sterile APIs, data on the sterilisation process of the API, including
validation data, should be included in the dossier, unless it is stated on the CPQ that the API
is sterile.
3.2.S.3.1 Elucidation of structure and other characteristics - studies to identify polymorphs and
particle size distribution, where applicable, as per guidance in this section.
3.2.S.4.1 Specification - the specifications of the FPP manufacturer including all tests and
limits of the API manufacturer’s specifications and any additional tests and acceptance criteria
that are not controlled by the API manufacturer’s specifications such as polymorphs and/or
particle size distribution.
3.2.S.4.2 / 3.2.S.4.3 Analytical procedures and validation – for any methods used by the FPP
manufacturer in addition to those in the API manufacturer’s specifications.
3.2.S.4.4 Batch analysis - results from two batches of at least pilot scale, demonstrating
compliance with the FPP manufacturer’s API specifications.
3.2.S.7 Stability - data to support the retest period if either the proposed retest period is longer
or the proposed storage conditions are at a lower temperature or humidity to that of the
Prequalified API.
If more than one manufacturer of the API is being applied for (irrespective of the apparent
similarity of the routes utilised by the different manufacturers), or when different routes of
synthesis are used in the manufacture of the API, the following should be submitted, in addition
to Module 3.2.S for each API:
A report (desktop comparison) pointing out the differences in the routes used,
where applicable, and the differences with regard to the impurity profiles and
residual solvents unless justified. The specifications for the API should make
provision for these impurities and residual solvents.
2.02_Quality and Bioequivalence Guideline_Jul19_v7 Page 26 of 35
Registration of Medicines Quality and Bioequivalence Guideline
3.2.R.4.2 Batch analysis data (in a comparative tabular format) for at least two batches
(minimum pilot scale) of the active substance from the current and proposed
manufacturers/sites.
All ingredients of animal origin (excluding products from porcine origin) should be
BSE/TSE free. Include a declaration from FPP manufacturer that the materials
used will always comply with BSE/TSE free requirements.
Copy of the batch manufacturing record including the ingredient (API and
excipients) analytical reports, in process control tests reports, intermediate
product test reports, reconciliation records and a certificate of analysis for the
batch must be presented. Please note that if there is a major change in the
production process that affects the quality evaluation of the product, e.g. changes
to the process, in-process controls, or ingredients, updated production documents
will be required by SAHPRA. For editorial or minor changes (Type 1A variations
or administrative changes), annual notifications will suffice, and SAHPRA will not
require submission of updated production documents.
Copies of the executed production documents should be provided for the batches
used in the comparative bioavailability or biowaiver studies. Any notations made
by operators on the executed production documents should be clearly legible.
For solid oral dosage forms, the biobatch should, at a minimum, be one-tenth that
of full production scale or 100 000 tablets or capsules, whichever is the larger.
For dosage forms that do not require a comparative bioavailability study, the
executed production documents should be provided for the batches used in the
product development.
Copies of the FPP master production documents must be provided for each
manufacturing site, and should ideally be provided for each proposed strength and
commercial batch size. Master production documents from a pilot scale batch will
be sufficient, if the process has not yet been scaled up to production scale. Please
note that the pilot batch size should correspond to at least 10% of the production
scale batch or 100 000 tablets or capsules, whichever is the larger.
Where the EMA guidelines permit bracketing for commercial batch sizes, master
production documents for the smallest and largest batches as validated will be
sufficient.
The details in the master production documents should include, but not be limited
to, the following:
a) master formula;
c) relevant calculations (e.g. if the amount of API is adjusted based on the assay
results or on the anhydrous basis);
e) process parameters (e.g. mixing time, mixing speed, milling screen size,
processing temperature range, granulation end-point, tablet machine speed
(expressed as target and range));
ii. number of samples that should be tested (e.g. for blend uniformity testing of low
dose FPPs, blend drawn using a sampling thief from x positions in the blender),
iii. frequency of testing (e.g. weight variation every x minutes during compression
or capsule filling);
i) for sterile products, reference to SOPs in appropriate sections and a list of all
relevant SOPs at the end of the document;
If some of the required detail is contained in standard operating procedures (SOPs) and not
in the master production document, the applicant should submit both the master production
document and the relevant SOPs.
Placeholder section for documents that do not have a specified location in the CTD folder
structure, but which the applicant deems necessary for evaluation of the dossier. This
includes the SCoRE document.
For biowaiver purposes the dissolution profiles in three media (and the main / specification dissolution
medium if not one of the three dissolution media, as described in the Dissolution Guideline), of the
test and the reference product should be tested for similarity. The f 2 similarity factor should be used
to compare dissolution profiles from different products and / or strengths of a product. An f2 value ≥
50 indicates a sufficiently similar dissolution profile such that further in vivo studies are not necessary.
For an f2 value < 50, it may be necessary to conduct an in vivo study. However, when both test and
reference products dissolve 85% or more of the label amount of the API in ≤15 minutes similarity is
accepted without the need to calculate f2 values.
When all APIs and inactive pharmaceutical ingredients (IPIs) are in exactly the same
proportion between different strengths (e.g. a 100 mg strength tablet has all API and IPIs
exactly half of a 200 mg strength tablet and twice that of a 50 mg strength tablet).
When the APIs and IPIs are not in exactly the same proportion but the ratios of IPIs to the total
mass of the dosage form are within the limits defined by the Amendments guideline.
When the pharmaceutical products contain a low concentration of the APIs (e.g. less than 5%)
and these products are of different strengths but are of similar mass. The difference in API
content between strengths may be compensated for by mass changes in one or more of the
IPIs provided that the total mass of the pharmaceutical product remains within 10 % of the
mass of the pharmaceutical product on which the bioequivalence study was performed. In
addition, the same IPIs should be used for all strengths, provided that the changes remain
within the limits defined by the Amendments guideline.
The multisource product at one strength has been shown to be bioequivalent to the
corresponding strength of the reference product.
The further strengths of the multisource product are proportionally similar in formulation to that
of the studied strength.
When both of these criteria are met and all the dissolution profiles of the further dosage strengths are
shown to be similar to the one of the studied strength on a percentage released vs. time basis, the
biowaiver procedure can be considered for the further strengths.
When the pharmaceutical product is the same dosage form but of a different strength and is
proportionally similar in its API and IPIs, a biowaiver may be acceptable.
A modified-release dosage form is one for which the API release characteristics of time course and/or
location are chosen to accomplish therapeutic or convenience objectives not offered by conventional
dosage forms such as solutions, ointments, or promptly dissolving dosage forms. Delayed-release
and extended-release dosage forms are two types of modified-release dosage forms.
Delayed-release dosage forms - A delayed-release dosage form is one that releases an API(s) at a
time other than promptly after administration.
Extended-release dosage forms - An extended-release dosage form is one that allows at least a
twofold reduction in dosing frequency or significant increase in patient compliance or therapeutic
performance as compared to that presented as a conventional dosage form (e.g. as a solution or a
prompt drug-releasing, conventional solid dosage form).
The terms controlled release, prolonged action, and sustained release are used synonymously with
extended release. This document uses the term extended release to describe a formulation that does
not release an API immediately after oral dosing and that also allows a reduction in dosage frequency.
This nomenclature accords generally with the USP definition of extended release but does not specify
an impact on dosing frequency. The terms controlled release and extended release are considered
interchangeable in this guidance.
Modified release products include delayed release products and extended (controlled) release
products. In general, bioequivalence studies are required. In addition to the studies required for
immediate release products, a food-effect study is necessary. Multiple dose studies are generally not
recommended (see Dissolution guideline).
For extended release beaded capsules where the strength differs only in the number of beads
containing the API, a single-dose, fasting BE study should be carried out on the highest strength. A
biowaiver for the lower strength based on dissolution studies can be requested. Dissolution profiles
in support of a biowaiver should be generated for each strength using the recommended dissolution
test methods and media described in the Dissolution guideline.
an in vivo BE determination of one or more lower strengths may be waived based on dissolution
testing as previously described. Dissolution profiles should be generated on all the strengths of the
test and the reference products.
When the highest strength (generally, as usually the highest strength is used unless a lower strength
is chosen for reasons of safety) of the multisource product is bioequivalent to the highest strength or
dose2 of the reference product, and other strengths are proportionally similar in formulations and the
dissolution profiles are similar between the dosage strengths, biowaiver can be considered to lower /
other strengths.
Bioequivalence studies submitted where a foreign reference product has been used, will require
demonstration of equivalence between the foreign product and the innovator product marketed in
South Africa. If the reference product is not the current innovator product available on the SA market,
then the reference product may be procured from another country provided that it complies with the
requirements specified in the Pharmaceutical & Analytical guideline.
Dissolution profiles of the test and reference products should be compared for similarity as described
in the Dissolution Guideline for each of the three specified media irrespective of the solubility and/or
stability profiles. Further evidence in the main/specification dissolution medium, if not one of the
required dissolution media, should be provided.
3 Variations
2. Dose included in the dosage range of the SAHPRA-approved package insert of the innovator product
registered in South Africa
2.02_Quality and Bioequivalence Guideline_Jul19_v7 Page 32 of 35
Registration of Medicines Quality and Bioequivalence Guideline
I, {Full name}, {Job title} at {Company’s full legal name}, hereby confirm the following for application
{Application number, if allocated} submitted to the South African Health Products Regulatory Authority
(SAHPRA) on {Date of application submission}:
The information and documentation provided in support of this submission for registration is
true and correct.
The product submitted for registration with SAHPRA is the same as the product registered
with the above-specified regulatory authority or authorities.
The technical information in the dossier submitted to SAHPRA for registration is the same as
the technical information approved by the above-specified regulatory authority or authorities,
taking into account all variations that the above-specified regulatory authority or authorities
have approved since registration.
o Note: For WHO PQ vaccines submitted to the WHO in Product Summary File (PSF)
format, this content needs to be transferred to CTD format
The same manufacturing chain, processes and control of materials and finished product, and
in the case of vaccines also by the same batch release scheme;
The same active pharmaceutical ingredient (API) and finished pharmaceutical product (FPP)
specifications
The same essential elements of product information for pharmaceutical products, and in the
case of vaccines, by the same product information, packaging presentation and labelling.
Minor differences which are not considered essential may include differences in administrative
information, brand name, format and level of detail of product information as per regional
requirements, labelling of internal and external packaging and language of product information.
I hereby confirm that if documents have been submitted by [Insert full company legal name here]
which were received by the above-specified regulatory authority or authorities, these documents are
complete and unredacted.
Full name of Responsible pharmacist / Person authorised to communicate with the authority:
Job title, company:
Email address:
Telephone number:
Signature:
Date: Place:
I, {Full name}, {Job title} at {Company’s full legal name}, hereby confirm the following for application
{Application number} for product {Proposed product name} originally submitted to the South African
Health Products Regulatory Authority (SAHPRA) or the Medicines Control Council (MCC) on {Original
submission date}, and resubmitted to SAHPRA’s Backlog Clearance Program on {Resubmission
date}:
The information and documentation provided in support of this submission for registration is
true and correct.
No changes have been made to the application approved by SAHPRA or the MCC on
{Approval letter date} which would impact the prior approval(s), i.e. the dossier resubmitted to
the Backlog Clearance Program is identical to the approved dossier, OR
If change(s) have been made, please provide a summary of the changes below and include a
tabulated schedule of changes in your submission
If any of the above confirmations are found by SAHPRA to be incorrect and/or misleading, SAHPRA
reserves the right to reject the application.
Full name of Responsible pharmacist / Person authorised to communicate with the authority:
Job title, company:
Email address:
Telephone number:
Signature:
Date: Place: