USING PBPK MODELING TO SIMULATE THE DISPOSITION OF CANAGLIFLOZIN

Similar documents
Development of Canagliflozin: Mechanistic Absorption Modeling During Late-Stage Formulation and Process Optimization

Metformin: Mechanistic Absorption Modeling and IVIVC Development

Altered GI absorption in special populations: An industry perspective

Advantages and Limitations of In Vivo Predictive Dissolution (IPD) Systems

BASIC PHARMACOKINETICS

Advantages and Limitations of In Vivo Predictive Dissolution (IPD) Systems

HTPK: Conducting PK modeling and

Viera Lukacova Director, Simulation Sciences

Define the terms biopharmaceutics and bioavailability.

PK-UK Challenges and benefits of using PBPK to evaluate an IVIVC for drugs with nonideal solubility and/or permeability. Bath, November 2014

Volume 1(3) May-June 2013 Page 351

BIOPHARMACEUTICS and CLINICAL PHARMACY

Current Challenges and Opportunities in Demonstrating Bioequivalence

7. SUMMARY, CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Pharmacokinetics and bioavailability derived from various body fluids. Saliva samples instead of plasma samples

WHY... 8/21/2013 LEARNING OUTCOMES PHARMACOKINETICS I. A Absorption. D Distribution DEFINITION ADME AND THERAPEUIC ACTION

SCIENTIFIC DISCUSSION. Efavirenz

SCIENTIFIC DISCUSSION. Darunavir

Use of PBPK in simulating drug concentrations in pediatric populations: Case studies of Midazolam and Gabapentin

SCIENTIFIC DISCUSSION. Antimycobacterial (J04AC01).

Biowaiver and Dissolution Profile Comparison

Determination of bioavailability

Pharmacokinetic Modeling & Simulation in Discovery and non-clinical Development

UNIVERSITY OF THE WEST INDIES, ST AUGUSTINE

Muhammad Fawad Rasool Feras Khalil Stephanie Läer

Mylan Laboratories Limited F-4 & F-12, Malegaon MIDC, Sinnar Nashik Maharashtra State, India

1. Gastric Emptying Time Anatomically, a swallowed drug rapidly reaches the stomach. Eventually, the stomach empties its content in the small

Simulation of the Nonlinear PK of Gabapentin and Midazolam in. Adult and Pediatric Populations. Population Approach Group in Europe (PAGE)

BCS: Dissolution Testing as a Surrogate for BE Studies

DMPK. APRIL 27 TH 2017 Jan Neelissen Scientific Adviser Science & Technology

SCIENTIFIC DISCUSSION

Advances in Prediction of Food Effects

Aug 28 th, 2017 Pierre Daublain

Is the science that study relation of physicochemical properties of drug, dosage form, & route of administration on rate and extent of drug

SCIENTIFIC DISCUSSION

IPAC-RS/UF Orlando Inhalation Conference March 20, S.T. Horhota 1, C.B. Verkleij 2, P.J.G. Cornelissen 2, L. Bour 3, A. Sharma 3, M.

Basic Pharmacokinetics and Pharmacodynamics: An Integrated Textbook with Computer Simulations

1 Introduction: The Why and How of Drug Bioavailability Research

Biopharmaceutics Drug Disposition Classification System (BDDCS) --- Its Impact and Application

Application of IVIVCs in Formulation Development Douglas F Smith

Invokana (canagliflozin) NEW INDICATION REVIEW

Clinical Trials A Practical Guide to Design, Analysis, and Reporting

Saliva Versus Plasma Bioequivalence of Rusovastatin in Humans: Validation of Class III Drugs of the Salivary Excretion Classification System

Introduction to Pharmacokinetics (PK) Anson K. Abraham, Ph.D. Associate Principal Scientist, PPDM- QP2 Merck & Co. Inc., West Point, PA 5- June- 2017

2- Minimum toxic concentration (MTC): The drug concentration needed to just produce a toxic effect.

PHARMACOKINETICS OF DRUG ABSORPTION

Dr. Nele Plock. Dr. N. Plock, March 11, 2008, American Conference on Pharmacometrics

The clinical trial information provided in this public disclosure synopsis is supplied for informational purposes only.

SCIENTIFIC DISCUSSION. Lopinavir and Ritonavir 200 mg/50 mg Tablets * Name of the Finished Pharmaceutical Product:

Oral Soluble Film Products for Epilepsy: Clobazam (COSF) and Diazepam (DBSF)

SCIENTIFIC DISCUSSION

SCIENTIFIC DISCUSSION

Guideline for Bioequivalence Studies of Generic Products

Public Assessment Report. Scientific discussion. Carvedilol Aurobindo 6.25 mg and 25 mg, film-coated tablets (carvedilol) NL/H/2609/ /MR

The BCS: Where Do We Go from Here?

PHA 5127 FINAL EXAM FALL On my honor, I have neither given nor received unauthorized aid in doing this assignment.

SCIENTIFIC DISCUSSION

SCIENTIFIC DISCUSSION

WHOPAR. SCIENTIFIC DISCUSSION

Effect of Common Excipients on the Oral Drug Absorption of Biopharmaceutics Classification System Class 3 Drugs

EVALUATION OF EFFERVESCENT FLOATING TABLETS. 6.7 Mathematical model fitting of obtained drug release data

SCIENTIFIC DISCUSSION

Dr. M.Mothilal Assistant professor

Prediction of THC Plasma and Brain Concentrations following. Marijuana Administration: Approach and Challenges

Tablet is a major category of solid dosage forms which are widely used worldwide. Extensive information is required to prepare tablets with good

Applied Biopharmaceutics & Pharmacokinetics Sixth Edition

Stimulate your kinetic understanding Permeability Binding Metabolism Transporters

Pharmacokinetic and absolute bioavailability studies in early clinical development using microdose and microtracer approaches.

Basic Concepts of TDM

Exploiting BDDCS and the Role of Transporters

FDB FOOD AND DRUGS BOARD G H A N A GUIDELINES FOR CONDUCTING BIOEQUIVALENCE STUDIES

Establishing Prospective IVIVC for Generic Pharmaceuticals: Methodologies Assessment

FORMULATION AND CHARACTERIZATION OF TELMISATAN SOLID DISPERSIONS

Biopharmaceutics Drug Disposition Classification System (BDDCS) and Its Application in Drug Discovery and Development

Fed and Fasted Conditions Dissolution Studies

Principles of Toxicokinetics/Toxicodynanics

SCIENTIFIC DISCUSSION

Abacavir (as sulfate) 300 mg tablets WHOPAR part 6 May 2016 (Hetero Labs Ltd), HA575

Public Assessment Report. Scientific discussion. Metoprololsuccinat Actavis. Prolonged release tablets 25 mg, 50 mg, 100 mg and 200 mg

Predictive modeling of deposition, dissolution, absorption and systemic exposure

Revised European Guideline on PK and Clinical Evaluation of Modified Release Dosage Forms

Understand the physiological determinants of extent and rate of absorption

SCIENTIFIC DISCUSSION

Biopharmaceutics Lecture-11 & 12. Pharmacokinetics of oral absorption

Received: ; Revised; Accepted: A REVIEW ON BIOAVAILABILITY AND BIOEQUIVALENCE STUDY Shashi Kant*, Bharat Parashar

Bioavailability enhancement of poorly soluble APIs. Enhanced solubilization out of solid glassy solutions prepared by Hot-Melt Extrusion

PQRI Workshop Bethesda 2012

Enhancement of oral bioavailability of insulin in humans

Johnson & Johnson Pharmaceutical Research & Development, L.L.C.

Helmut Schütz. The Global Bioequivalence Harmonisation Initiative. 12 April 2018 [Session II: Necessity of multiple dose studies in BE testing] 1

Section 5.2: Pharmacokinetic properties

Scientific And Regulatory Background For The Revised Bioequivalence Requirements For NTI, Steep Exposure-Response, And Drugs With Complex PK Profiles

Absolute bioavailability and pharmacokinetic studies in early clinical development using microdose and microtracer approaches.

EMA/EGA. Session 1: orally administered Modified Release Products European Regulatory Requirements London 30 April 2015 Dr.

Biopharmaceutics of Non-Orally Administrated Drugs

Public Assessment Report. Scientific discussion. Ropinirol Actavis. Ropinirole hydrochloride DK/H/1212/ /DC

JARDIAMET. (empagliflozin and metformin hydrochloride) 5 mg/500 mg, 5 mg/850 mg, 5 mg/1000 mg, 12.5 mg/500 mg, 12.5 mg/850 mg, 12.

Draft Agreed by Pharmacokinetics Working Party February Adoption by CHMP for release for consultation 1 April 2016

SCIENTIFIC DISCUSSION

Clinical Study Synopsis for Public Disclosure

Transcription:

USING PBPK MODELING TO SIMULATE THE DISPOSITION OF CANAGLIFLOZIN Christophe Tistaert PDMS Pharmaceutical Sciences Preformulation & Biopharmaceutics AAPS 2015, FLORIDA (USA)

Canagliflozin An orally active renal SGLT2 inhibitor approved as an adjunct to diet and exercise to improve the glycemic control in adults with T2DM Doses: 100/300 mg once daily, before the first meal of the day Mechanism of Action: Inhibits SGLT2 activity Decreases renal glucose reabsorption Increases UGE thereby reducing PG Increases insulin sensitivity & decreases gluconeogenesis Reduces body weight (~300-400 kcal/day) Improves β-cell function PG: plasma glucose; SGLT2: sodium glucose co-transporter 2; T2DM: type 2 diabetes mellitus; UGE: urinary glucose excretion 2

Pharmacokinetics of Canagliflozin Similar PK profile in healthy adults vs. patients with T2DM Time to attain peak plasma concentrations: ~1 2 hours after dosing Glucuronidated mainly by UGT1A9 and UGT2B4 to 2 inactive O-glucuronide metabolites Dose-dependent PK (canagliflozin and metabolites) No time-dependent changes following single- and multiple-dose administration (100 and 300 mg/day) No food effect Mean absolute oral bioavailability: 65% Elimination half-life: ~10-13 hours Biopharmaceutics Classification System class 4 compound (low solubility and permeability) PK: pharmacokinetics; UGT: uridine diphosphate glucuronosyltransferase; T2DM: type 2 diabetes mellitus 3

Formulation Development Granulation process was changed from high shear granulation (HSG) to fluid bed granulation (FBG) In-line milling step was added to the crystallization process: To narrow the particle size distribution (PE) Reduces the fine and coarse particles but does not change the solvent system All HSG tablets and FBG (early batches) tablets were manufactured using NPE API lots PE API was used for drug product resupply of FBG tablets (later parts of Phase 3 studies) Early batches of NPE API had broader particle size distribution and later NPE API lots had particle size distribution fairly similar to PE API lots The formulation compositions of both NPE and PE API were identical API: active pharmaceutical ingredient; NPE: non-particle-engineered; PE: particle-engineered 4

Various Particle Size Used in Clinical Studies NPE API Lot Number d10 (µm) d50 (µm) d90 (µm) NPE Lot 1 20 63 173 PE API Lot Number d10 (µm) d50 (µm) d90 (µm) PE Lot 1 16 40 88 NPE Lot 2 8 179 512 NPE Lot 3 15 49 142 NPE Lot 4 31 86 348 NPE Lot 5 26 78 276 NPE Lot 6 9 29 101 NPE Lot 7 11 35 114 NPE Lot 8 12 37 124 NPE Lot 9 10 36 119 NPE Lot 10 13 45 138 NPE Lot 11 11 35 99 PE Lot 2 20 49 102 PE Lot 3 22 53 108 PE Lot 4 19 39 71 PE Lot 5 17 35 67 PE Lot 6 23 48 93 PE Lot 7 21 44 87 PE Lot 8 21 45 90 PE Lot 9 24 50 94 PE Lot 10 21 45 89 PE Lot 11 19 42 88 PE Lot 12 22 47 95 API: active pharmaceutical ingredient; d10, d50, and d90: diameter for which 10%, 50%, and 90% (respectively) by volume of the particles are less than this value; NPE: non-particle-engineered; PE: particle-engineered 5

Percentage of Patients: NPE vs. PE in Phase 3 Studies Phase 3 Study NPE a PE a Both a 100 mg % of patients b 300 mg % of patients b 100 mg % of patients b 300 mg % of patients b 100 mg % of patients b 300 mg % of patients b Study 1 95.6, 97.3 47.2, 8.6 4.4, 1.4 51.7, 90.1 0, 1.4 1.1, 1.2 Study 2 50.3, 0 49.1, 0 15.2, 100 48.3, 100 34.4, 0 2.6, 0 Study 3 37.7, 0 39.6, 0 62.1, 100 60.4, 100 0.2, 0 0 Study 4 0 63.2, 1.2 74.3, 98.9 36.0, 98.8 25.7, 1.1 0.9, 0 Particle size distribution of both NPE and PE API lots used were similar The formulation composition of both NPE and PE API formulations was identical NPE: non-particle-engineered; PE: particle-engineered a NPE: patients received drug supply with tablets manufactured using NPE drug substance; PE: patients received drug supply with tablets manufactured using PE drug substance; Both: patients received drug supply with both types of formulations (NPE and PE) b Percentages calculated with the number of patients per time interval as denominator; (percentage at randomization, percentage at time of primary endpoint) 6

Approaches Taken To Access The Effect of Particle Size GastroPlus modeling Physicochemical API characterization Approaches Exposure comparison across clinical Phase 1 studies Relative bioavailability study in dogs API: active pharmaceutical ingredient 7

GastroPlus Simulations for Canagliflozin Objectives Determine the absorption/pk model for canagliflozin Compare regional % absorption and gut lumen concentration-time profiles between the tablets manufactured with NPE API and with PE API Assess the effect of API particle size on canagliflozin exposure for immediate release formulation Evaluate predicted bioequivalence of the tablets manufactured with PE API vs. NPE API Simulations were performed using GastroPlus 7.0 software (Simulations Plus, Inc., Lancaster, California) API: active pharmaceutical ingredient; NPE: non-particle-engineered; PE: particle-engineered; PK: pharmacokinetics 8

Physiologically Based Modeling and Simulations Methodology Biopharmaceutical property setup Imported molecular structure, in vitro data (diffusion coefficient, solubility, permeability, blood/plasma concentration ratio, plasma protein binding) Formulation setup Dosage form selection (fasted versus fed), dose volume, particle size distribution Physiological setup Gastrointestinal physiology for nine mathematical compartments of the gastrointestinal tract - using Humanphysiological-fasted and Humanphysiological-fed model Compartmental PK Data describing in vivo absorption; consists of one-, two-, or threecompartmental pharmacokinetic simulations of Cp vs. time PK of canagliflozin Across 3 dose levels (50, 100, and 300 mg) Cp: plasma concentration; PK: pharmacokinetics 9

Key physicochemical and biopharmaceutical parameters for canagliflozin used Property Value References logp 3.8 Reported by Janssen R & D Diffusion coefficient 0.67 * 10-5 cm/s² ADMET Predictor 5.0 Association constant (pka) None (neutral molecule) Aqueous solubility 0.0345 mg/ml @ ph 7.5 Reported by Janssen R & D FaSSIF solubility 0.54 mg/ml @ ph 6.5 Reported by Janssen R & D FeSSIF solubility 5.01 mg/ml @ ph 5.0 Reported by Janssen R & D Human effective permeability (P eff ) 3.66 * 10-4 cm/s ADMET Predictor 5.0 Drug particle density 1.2 g/ml Default Mean precipitation time 900 s Default Blood: plasma concentration ratio (R bp ) 0.77 ADMET Predictor 5.0 Plasma protein binding (f up ) 2.7% unbound Reported by Janssen R & D ADMET: Absorption, Distribution, Metabolism, Excretion, and Toxicity; FaSSIF: fasted state simulated intestinal fluid; FeSSIF: fed state simulated intestinal fluid 10

Model Validation 100 mg day 1 Simulated (lines) and experimental (points) 50 mg day 1 300 mg day 1 Excellent match between the measured and predicted Cp time profiles for 50, 100, and 300 mg doses Cp-time: plasma concentration time 11

Percent Absorbed (%) Regional Absorption of once-daily Canagliflozin (300 mg) 0.0 0.0 10.0 10.0 24.5 24.5 13.9 13.9 7.5 7.5 4.2 4.2 2.2 2.2 10.6 10.6 11.6 12.7 Percent Absorbed (%) 84.6 85.7 0.0 0.0 15.7 15.7 34.3 34.3 17.3 17.3 8.4 8.4 4.3 4.3 2.2 2.2 8.2 8.2 6.2 6.4 96.5 96.7 100.0 80.0 Day 1 Day 7 60.0 40.0 NPE Lot 20.0 0.0 Stom Duod Jej1 Jej2 Ile1 Ile2 lle3 Caec Col Total Compartment 120.0 100.0 Day 1 Day 7 PE Lot 80.0 60.0 40.0 20.0 NPE: non-particle-engineered; PE: particle-engineered Stom: stomach; Duod: Duodenum; Jej: Jejunum1; Jej: Jejunum2; Ile: Ileum1; Ile: Ileum2; Ile: Ileum3; Caec: Caecum; Col: Colon 0.0 Stom Duod Jej1 Jej2 Ile1 Ile2 lle3 Caec Col Total Compartment 12

Parameter Sensitivity Analysis Performed for: Mean particle size Particle shape factor Particle size standard deviation Range of values evaluated: Mean particle size: 5 500 µm Particle shape factor: 0.835 3.34 Particle size standard deviation: 20 80 µm Dose range: 10 mg to 1000 mg 13

Parameter Sensitivity Analysis Change in Fa%, C max, T max as a function of mean particle diameter C max : maximum observed plasma concentration; Fa%: fraction absorbed; T max : time to reach C max 14

Parameter Sensitivity Analysis Change in Fa%, C max, T max as a function of particle standard deviation C max : maximum observed plasma concentration; Fa%: fraction absorbed; T max : time to reach C max 15

Parameter Sensitivity Analysis Change in Fa%, C max, T max as a function of particle shape C max : maximum observed plasma concentration; Fa%: fraction absorbed; T max : time to reach C max 16

Parameter Sensitivity Analysis: Conclusion No difference in Fa% for mean particle diameters <50 m Once the mean particle diameter exceeded 50 m, Fa% decreased with increase in mean particle diameter Similar trends were seen across all doses for C max, while, T max increased with increase in mean particle diameter Insignificant changes in Fa% across the shape factor range analyzed and only moderate changes for particle standard deviation were observed For the shape factor, similar trends were seen across all doses for C max and T max The doses above 200 mg showed a slightly lower Fa% Similar trends were observed across all investigated doses (10 to 1000 mg) Analysis showed that mean particle size would be the main property that determine bioequivalence of formulation, regardless of dose C max : maximum observed plasma concentration; Fa%: fraction absorbed; T max : time to reach C max 17

Virtual Bioequivalence Study Simulations Using crossover virtual trial simulation comparing different formulations (PK parameters: C max and AUC) API Lot NPE or PE d10 (µm) d50 (µm) d90 (µm) Lot 1 NPE 26 78 276 Lot 2 NPE 11 35 99 Lot 3 NPE 14 43 116 Lot 4 NPE 11 32 91 Lot 5 PE 17 41 88 API: active pharmaceutical ingredient; AUC : area under the plasma concentration-time curve; C max : maximum observed plasma concentration; d10, d50, and d90: diameter for which 10%, 50%, and 90% (respectively) by volume of the particles are less than this value; NPE: non-particle-engineered; PE: particle-engineered; PK: pharmacokinetics 18

Virtual Bioequivalence Study Simulations API Lot PE/NPE Dose (mg) AUC (ng.h/ml) (N=25) C max (ng/ml) (N=25) GM GMR (90% CI) GM GMR (90% CI) Lot 5 PE 50 4103 113.9 554 140.2 Lot 1 NPE 50 3602 (105.3, 123.2) 395 (129.5, 151.8) Lot 5 PE 100 7867 99.2 1044 Lot 3 NPE 100 7924 (91.9, 107.0) 1019 102.5 (95.0, 110.6) Lot 5 Lot 2 PE NPE 300 300 24240 22958 105.6 (98.5, 113.2) 3104 3004 Lot 5 PE 100 7867 95.5 1044 Lot 4 NPE 100 8235 (90.6, 100.7) 1130 Lot 5 PE 300 24240 101.7 3104 Lot 4 NPE 300 23835 (95.5, 108.3) 3165 103.3 (96.3, 110.9) 92.5 (87.6, 97.6) 98.1 (92.0, 104.5) API: active pharmaceutical ingredient; AUC : area under the plasma concentration-time curve from time 0 to infinite time; CI: confidence interval; C max : maximum observed plasma concentration; GM: geometric mean; GMR: geometric mean ratio; NPE: non-particle-engineered; PE: particle-engineered 19

Virtual Bioequivalence Study Simulations API Lot PE/NPE Dose (mg) AUC (ng.h/ml) (N=250) C max (ng/ml) (N=250) GM GMR (90% CI) GM GMR (90% CI) Lot 5 PE 50 4180 113.3 551 139.3 Lot 1 NPE 50 3688 (110.7, 116.1) 395 (136.0, 142.7) Lot 5 PE 100 8242 103.0 551 Lot 3 NPE 100 8001 (100.9, 105.1) 395 106.4 (104.3, 108.6) Lot 5 Lot 2 PE NPE 300 300 24998 24460 102.2 (99.8, 104.6) 3118 3117 Lot 5 PE 100 8242 98.2 1068 Lot 4 NPE 100 8395 (96.2, 100.2) 1123 Lot 5 PE 300 24998 101.9 3118 Lot 4 NPE 300 24525 (99.8, 104.1) 3171 100.0 (97.7, 102.4) 95.1 (93.2, 97.0) 98.3 (96.3, 100.4) API: active pharmaceutical ingredient; AUC : area under the plasma concentration-time curve from time 0 to infinite time; CI: confidence interval; C max : maximum observed plasma concentration; GM: geometric mean; GMR: geometric mean ration; NPE: non-particle-engineered; PE: particle-engineered 20

Virtual Bioequivalence Study Simulations: Conclusions For a sufficiently powered study, the population-derived C max and AUC values would be bioequivalent between the tablets manufactured with NPE API (Lots 2 and 4) and tablets manufactured with PE API, regardless of the dose Lot 1 with larger particle size and large proportion of coarse particles is not bioequivalent for C max compared to PE API lots, but bioequivalent for AUC API: active pharmaceutical ingredient; AUC: area under the plasma concentration-time curve; C max : maximum observed plasma concentration; NPE: non-particleengineered; PE: particle-engineered 21

Other Approaches Used for Canagliflozin

Physicochemical API Characterization NPE and PE API particles comparable in physical and chemical attributes Comparable results with XRD, TGA, DSC, FT-IR, FT-Raman and intrinsic dissolution Similar crystalline quality between the NPE and PE batches Fairly similar particle size distribution between NPE and PE API lots PE process to be more reproducible with regard to particle size distribution In vitro dissolution of tablets (QC dissolution) with NPE API vs. PE API was similar API: active pharmaceutical ingredient; DSC: differential scanning calorimetry; FT-IR: Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy; FT-Raman: Fourier transform Raman spectroscopy; NPE: non-particle-engineered; PE: particle-engineered; PK: pharmacokinetics; QC: quality control; TGA: thermal gravimetric analysis; XRD: x-ray diffraction analysis 23

Pooled Phase I Analysis Approach Parameter Single-Dose Administration N Geometric Mean PE API (Test) N NPE API (Reference) GMR (90% CI) C max, (ng/ml)/mg 156 9.76 189 8.52 114.57 (107.91; 121.64) AUC, (ng.h/ml)/mg 149 70.3 106 75.6 92.95 (87.00; 99.31) Multiple-Dose Administration C max, (ng/ml)/mg 136 10.1 113 10.8 94.09 (87.49; 101.19) AUC 24h, (ng.h/ml)/mg 136 70.1 113 75.0 93.47 (87.40; 99.97) No significant effect of particle size distribution on the PK of canagliflozin was observed following administration of tablets manufactured from NPE or PE API API: active pharmaceutical ingredient ; AUC : area under the plasma concentration-time curve from time 0 to infinite time; AUC 24h : area under the plasma concentration-time curve during the 24-hour dosing interval; CI: confidence interval; C max : maximum observed plasma concentration; GMR: geometric mean ratio; NPE: non-particle-engineered; PE: particle-engineered; PK: pharmacokinetics 24

Bioavailability Study in Dog (100 mg dose) Parameter NPE API Lot 1 d10/50/90 9/29/101 µm (n=4) PE API Lot 2 d10/50/90 21/51/104 µm (n=4) PE API Lot 3 d10/50/90 2/6/14 µm (n=4) T max, h 2.50 1.25 0.625 C max, ng/ml 10100 10600 10200 AUC 48h, ng.h/ml 150000 145000 131000 Although a lower mean T max was observed for the specially produced narrower particle size distribution, only small differences in C max (less than 5%) and AUC (less than 15%) were observed among the 3 API lots These results were consistent with GastroPlus findings API: active pharmaceutical ingredient; AUC 48h : area under the plasma concentration-time curve during the 48-hour dosing interval; C max : maximum observed plasma concentration; NPE: non-particle-engineered; PE: particle-engineered; PK: pharmacokinetics 25

Conclusion Differences in particle size distribution between NPE API and PE API lots would not cause any meaningful differences in the oral bioavailability of canagliflozin tablets and ultimately not affect the exposure of canagliflozin API: active pharmaceutical ingredient; NPE: non-particle-engineered; PE: particle-engineered. 26

Summary The potential effects of API particle size distribution on the oral bioavailability of canagliflozin for NPE and PE API lots produced by 2 different crystallization processes were assessed by evaluation of physicochemical characteristics, GastroPlus simulations, cross-study comparisons of PK data, and a nonclinical bioavailability study in beagle dogs Demonstrated that differences in particle size distribution between NPE and PE API lots would not be expected to lead to any meaningful differences in the oral bioavailability of canagliflozin tablets Based on the similar physicochemical characteristics of NPE and PE API lots and similar bioavailability of tablets manufactured with NPE and PE API lots, it can be concluded that data from clinical studies using NPE API lots can be used to support PK labeling statements API: active pharmaceutical ingredient; NPE: non-particle-engineered; PE: particle-engineered; PK: pharmacokinetics 27

Regulatory Feedback Query Does the Agency agree that the data package to support drug product lots using NPE and PE API is sufficient and that results from completed Phase 1 studies using NPE API can be used to support clinical pharmacology and biopharmaceutics labeling statements and that a relative bioavailability study comparing drug product lots using NPE and PE API is not required? FDA Response Although the approach used to compare NPE and PE API appears reasonable, the answer to this question is review issue. If the conclusions drawn in the current submission can be confirmed, a relative bioavailability study is not needed. Please submit detailed information to the NDA, including the following: 1. The physic-chemical property data, including the intrinsic dissolution profile comparison. 2. The GastroPlus model and simulation details, including description, assumption and validation for the model. Also include the scenarios, parameters and the interpretations for the simulation. 3. The data for each trial used in the cross-study comparison. API: active pharmaceutical ingredient; NDA: new drug application; NPE: non-particle-engineered; PE: particle-engineered 28

Janssen received approval of NDA based on the successful review 29

Acknowledgements Dr. Damayanthi Devineni (Janssen Research & Development) for her contribution as the clinical pharmacology leader responsible for the work. Staff at Simulations Plus for designing the GastroPlus modeling work Dr. Vaibhav Deshpande (SIRO Clinpharm Pvt Ltd) for writing assistance and Dr. Bradford Challis (Janssen Research & Development) for editorial support Study support: This study was funded by Janssen Research & Development, LLC 30

Q & A 31