Bioequivalence assessment of topical clobetasol propionate products using visual and chromametric assessment of skin blanching.
OBJECTIVE
The assessment of the degree of skin blanching following the application of a formulation containing a topical corticosteroid has been established as a surrogate method for the determination of bioequivalence. In this study, both visual and chromametric assessments have been carried out on two topical creams containing clobetasol propionate (0.05%) and the results from both methods are compared.


METHODS
Human subjects (volunteers) were screened using a cream containing 0.05%clobetasol propionate, in order to identify appropriate subjects for inclusion in the study. The study was implemented according to the FDA guidance using both visual and chromameter assessment techniques. Blanching responses were assessed visually by three trained, independent observers and instrumentally using a Chromameter. An ED50 of 36 min was used as the dose duration based upon data previously obtained from a pilot study using the same topical corticosteroid reference product. A visual rating scale of 0-4 and the a-scale readings from the chromameter were used.


RESULTS
The visual and chromameter blanching profiles showed similar blanching responses with good correspondence. The 90% confidence intervals for the data from both methods were calculated using Locke's method. When only the data obtained from 23 subjects who were identified as"detectors" (as per FDA guidance) were used, the products fell within the bioequivalence acceptance range of 80-125% using the visual assessment method (99.3-111.6%) whereas the data using a chromameter (86.5-129.3%) were just outside the acceptance limits. However, when all subjects (n=34) were included in the calculations, both the visual (97.9-109.2) and chromameter (90.2-120.7) data fell within the bioequivalence acceptance range.


CONCLUSIONS
Whereas visual data indicated bioequivalence using either data from "detectors" or data from all subjects, the chromameter data from "detectors" only indicated bioinequivalence but inclusion of all subject data fell within the acceptance range to be declared bioequivalent.
Au
Wai Ling
WL
Division of Pharmaceutics, Faculty of Pharmacy, Rhodes University, Grahamstown, 6140, South Africa.
Skinner
Michael
M
Kanfer
Isadore
I
D000279:Administration, Cutaneous; D000328:Adult; D002845:Chromatography; D002990:Clobetasol / Q000008:administration & dosage* / Q000493:pharmacokinetics*; D005260:Female; D006801:Humans; D008297:Male; D010328:Patch Tests / Q000379:methods; D012867:Skin / Q000187:drug effects / Q000378:metabolism*; D012869:Skin Absorption / Q000187:drug effects / Q000502:physiology; D013810:Therapeutic Equivalency; D014785:Vision, Ocular
D002990:Clobetasol