This study aimed to link pharmacokinetic (PK) data from different flurbiprofen preparations for the treatment of sore throat with published data to elucidate whether early efficacy is due to the local action of flurbiprofen or a systemic effect after absorption of the swallowed drug. Three comparative bioavailability studies conducted in healthy subjects provided data from flurbiprofen 8.75 mg formulations, including spray solution, spray gel, lozenges, and granules. A parallel interstudy comparison was made of PK parameters, including partial AUCs (pAUCs), using an ANOVA model with the calculation of 90% confidence intervals (CI) for the differences between least squares (LS) means for each of the test groups versus the respective reference groups. All three studies showed bioequivalence for the respective product comparisons. The interstudy comparison showed a slower rate of absorption for granules compared to spray solution (reference) based on T_max, C_max, and pAUCs for 1 h and 2 h. When AUC_0.25h and AUC_0.5h were considered, slower rates of absorption were also seen for lozenges and spray gel. The differences correlated with the reported time of onset of action, which is faster for the spray solution (20 min) compared to lozenges (26 min) and granules (30 min). These pAUCs provide useful data that allow for the discrimination between formulations. Moreover, the pAUC values represent <5% of the total AUC, suggesting that the early onset of pain relief is a response to immediate local absorption at the site of action rather than a systemic effect.

Background/Objectives: For locally applied, locally acting generic drug products, comparison to an originator product based on systemic exposure is usually not feasible due to low plasma concentrations and inadequate reflection of local exposure at the site of action. Where a validated PD model exists, a comparative clinical study can be performed in healthy subjects; where no surrogate endpoint is available, patients with the relevant indication need to be enrolled, with all the associated factors which could result in lack of sensitivity. Even though the need for alternative in vitro approaches has been acknowledged by both industry and regulatory bodies, the complexity of in vivo drug delivery processes makes the development of guidance documents particularly difficult. Our objective was to present in vitro approaches less classically used and to address in vivo relevance of the selected tests. Methods: This article analyses current regulatory approaches in Europe and the U.S., and highlights the key advantages of in vitro tests in terms of their sensitivity, reliability, reproducibility and in vivo relevance using locally applied flurbiprofen in various formulations. Results: The in vitro esophageal retention (IVOR) model demonstrates that the first 6–10 min after application of different flurbiprofen formulations is important for their comparison and also offers the best correlation with in vivo data using the partial area under the concentration-time curves (pAUCs). Rheological evaluations further demonstrated that the mucoadhesive properties of the gel spray formulation are based on interaction with mucin. Conclusions: Designing a relevant in vitro test requires adequate evaluation of the complexity of the drug substance, drug product, dosing conditions and delivery processes.