21 C.F.R. § 320.24

Types of evidence to measure bioavailability or establish bioequivalence

Read at: eCFRecfr.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) Bioavailability may be measured or bioequivalence may be demonstrated by several in vivo and in vitro methods. FDA may require in vivo or in vitro testing, or both, to measure the bioavailability of a drug product or establish the bioequivalence of specific drug products. Information on bioequivalence requirements for specific products is included in the current edition of FDA's publication “Approved Drug Products with Therapeutic Equivalence Evaluations” and any current supplement to the publication. The selection of the method used to meet an in vivo or in vitro testing requirement depends upon the purpose of the study, the analytical methods available, and the nature of the drug product. Applicants shall conduct bioavailability and bioequivalence testing using the most accurate, sensitive, and reproducible approach available among those set forth in paragraph (b) of this section. The method used must be capable of measuring bioavailability or establishing bioequivalence, as appropriate, for the product being tested.

(b) The following in vivo and in vitro approaches, in descending order of accuracy, sensitivity, and reproducibility, are acceptable for determining the bioavailability or bioequivalence of a drug product.

(1)(i) An in vivo test in humans in which the concentration of the active ingredient or active moiety, and, when appropriate, its active metabolite(s), in whole blood, plasma, serum, or other appropriate biological fluid is measured as a function of time. This approach is particularly applicable to dosage forms intended to deliver the active moiety to the bloodstream for systemic distribution within the body; or

(ii) An in vitro test that has been correlated with and is predictive of human in vivo bioavailability data; or

(2) An in vivo test in humans in which the urinary excretion of the active moiety, and, when appropriate, its active metabolite(s), are measured as a function of time. The intervals at which measurements are taken should ordinarily be as short as possible so that the measure of the rate of elimination is as accurate as possible. Depending on the nature of the drug product, this approach may be applicable to the category of dosage forms described in paragraph (b)(1)(i) of this section. This method is not appropriate where urinary excretion is not a significant mechanism of elimination.

(3) An in vivo test in humans in which an appropriate acute pharmacological effect of the active moiety, and, when appropriate, its active metabolite(s), are measured as a function of time if such effect can be measured with sufficient accuracy, sensitivity, and reproducibility. This approach is applicable to the category of dosage forms described in paragraph (b)(1)(i) of this section only when appropriate methods are not available for measurement of the concentration of the moiety, and, when appropriate, its active metabolite(s), in biological fluids or excretory products but a method is available for the measurement of an appropriate acute pharmacological effect. This approach may be particularly applicable to dosage forms that are not intended to deliver the active moiety to the bloodstream for systemic distribution.

(4) Well-controlled clinical trials that establish the safety and effectiveness of the drug product, for purposes of measuring bioavailability, or appropriately designed comparative clinical trials, for purposes of demonstrating bioequivalence. This approach is the least accurate, sensitive, and reproducible of the general approaches for measuring bioavailability or demonstrating bioequivalence. For dosage forms intended to deliver the active moiety to the bloodstream for systemic distribution, this approach may be considered acceptable only when analytical methods cannot be developed to permit use of one of the approaches outlined in paragraphs (b)(1)(i) and (b)(2) of this section, when the approaches described in paragraphs (b)(1)(ii), (b)(1)(iii), and (b)(3) of this section are not available. This approach may also be considered sufficiently accurate for measuring bioavailability or demonstrating bioequivalence of dosage forms intended to deliver the active moiety locally, e.g., topical preparations for the skin, eye, and mucous membranes; oral dosage forms not intended to be absorbed, e.g., an antacid or radiopaque medium; and bronchodilators administered by inhalation if the onset and duration of pharmacological activity are defined.

(5) A currently available in vitro test acceptable to FDA (usually a dissolution rate test) that ensures human in vivo bioavailability.

(6) Any other approach deemed adequate by FDA to measure bioavailability or establish bioequivalence.

(c) FDA may, notwithstanding prior requirements for measuring bioavailability or establishing bioequivalence, require in vivo testing in humans of a product at any time if the agency has evidence that the product:

(1) May not produce therapeutic effects comparable to a pharmaceutical equivalent or alternative with which it is intended to be used interchangeably;

(2) May not be bioequivalent to a pharmaceutical equivalent or alternative with which it is intended to be used interchangeably; or

(3) Has greater than anticipated potential toxicity related to pharmacokinetic or other characteristics.

[57 FR 17999, Apr. 28, 1992; 57 FR 29354, July 1, 1992, as amended at 67 FR 77673, Dec. 19, 2002]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 15 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1981–2024 · leading case: Viropharma Inc. v. Hamburg, 898 F. Supp. 2d 1 (D.D.C. 2012).
Viropharma Inc. v. Hamburg, 898 F. Supp. 2d 1 (D.D.C. 2012). · cites it 6× “For example, the agency cited 21 C.F.R. § 320.24 (a), which provides that the agency “may require in vivo or in vitro testing, or both, to .”
ViroPharma, Inc. v. Hamburg, 777 F. Supp. 2d 140 (D.D.C. 2011). · cites it 5× “) Instead, the FDA relies on language in 21 C.F.R. § 320.24 , which states that “FDA may require in vivo or in vitro testing, or both, to .”
Astellas Pharma US, Inc. v. Food & Drug Admin., 642 F. Supp. 2d 10 (D.D.C. 2009). · cites it 3× “” 21 C.F.R. § 320.24 (b). B. Approval of Prograf® and Generic Tacrolimus In April 1994, the FDA approved the plaintiffs NDA for the immunosuppressant tacrolimus, which it markets under the brand name Prograf®.”
Fed. Trade Comm'n v. Shire Viropharma, Inc., 917 F.3d 147 (3rd Cir. 2019). “, 21 C.F.R. § 320.24 (a) (providing that the FDA may require either in vivo or in vitro studies to demonstrate bioequivalence).”
Hill Dermaceuticals, Inc. v. Food & Drug Admin., 709 F.3d 44 (D.C. Cir. 2013). “22(b)(3) and granted a waiver for Identi’s ear drops under 21 C.F.R. § 320.24 (b)(6), a catch-all provision allowing waiver under “[a]ny other approach deemed adequate by FDA to .”
Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Shalala, 923 F. Supp. 212 (D.D.C. 1996). “21 C.F.R. § 320.24 (b)(6). The FDA also relies on certain specified “[c]riteria and evidence to assess actual or potential bioequivalence problems” for guidance on factors used to determine whether in vivo and/or in vitro testing is necessary to establish bioequiva-lence.”
Schering Corp. v. Sullivan, 782 F. Supp. 645 (D.D.C. 1992). · cites it 2× “See 21 C.F.R. § 320.24 (c)(3) (1990). 9 . Even under the 1977 regulations, FDA was required to find bioequivalence by "the most accurate, sensitive, and reproducible approach available.”
1199seiu Nat'l Benefit Fund v. Allergan, Inc. (In re Restasis (Cyclosporine Ophthalmic Emulsion) Antitrust Litig.), 333 F. Supp. 3d 135 (E.D.N.Y 2018). “" 21 C.F.R. § 320.24 (a). Applicants are required to use "the most accurate, sensitive, and reproducible approach available" that is capable of establishing bioequivalence for the product being studied.”
Nostrum Pharm. LLC v. FDA, 35 F.4th 820 (D.C. Cir. 2022). “612 (citing 21 C.F.R. § 320.24 (a)). It also denied Nostrum’s request for a waiver of bioequivalence studies for its lower-strength formulations.”
Somerset Pharm., Inc. v. Shalala, 973 F. Supp. 443 (D. Del. 1997). · cites it 2× “(b)(l)(i) An in vivo test in humans in which the concentration of the active moiety, and, when, appropriate, its active metabolite(s), in whole blood, plasma, serum, or other appropriate biological fluid are measured as a function of time____ 21 C.F.R. § 320.24 . On September…”
United States v. Premo Pharm. Labs., Inc., 511 F. Supp. 958 (D.N.J. 1981). “The three forms of testing are listed in descending order of accuracy, sensitivity, and reproducibility: the second method is acceptable only when the first is not possible and the third is acceptable only when the first and second are impossible to perform (21 C.F.R.…”
Viropharma Inc. v. Hamburg, 471 F. App'x 1 (D.C. Cir. 2012). “In September 2010, over two years after the agency issued the acarbose decision, ViroPharma filed the present litigation, alleging that the FDA’s interpretation of 21 C.F.R. § 320.24 in the acarbose decision was an effective amendment of the agency’s regulations.”
— 21 C.F.R. § 320.24(b) — 1 case
Viropharma Inc. v. Hamburg, 898 F. Supp. 2d 1 (D.D.C. 2012). “For example, the agency cited 21 C.F.R. § 320.24 (a), which provides that the agency “may require in vivo or in vitro testing, or both, to .”
— 21 C.F.R. § 320.24(c) — 1 case
United States v. Premo Pharm. Labs., Inc., 511 F. Supp. 958 (D.N.J. 1981). “The three forms of testing are listed in descending order of accuracy, sensitivity, and reproducibility: the second method is acceptable only when the first is not possible and the third is acceptable only when the first and second are impossible to perform (21 C.F.R.…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.