ANDA Filings in India: Insights from Industry Experts

Abstract

An Abbreviated New Drug Application (ANDA) is submitted to regulatory authorities for the approval of generic drugs. The regulatory requirements for ANDA approval vary across different regions. To obtain approval, an ANDA must demonstrate that the generic drug is bioequivalent to the reference listed drug, ensuring safety, efficacy, and quality in accordance with regulatory guidelines. The main objective of the study is to compare the critical factors, challenges and legal framework of various pharmaceutical industries in India for manufacturing and marketing of generic drugs. To analyze ANDA filings in India through insights from Industrial experts.

Keywords

Introduction

DISCUSSION

While regulatory agencies provide structured pathways for ANDA approvals, pharmaceutical companies often encounter practical challenges that are not fully addressed by regulations. To understand these challenges, interviews were conducted with experts from Apex Pharma Private Limited, Manufacturers Pharma Formulation, Itaan Pharma Private Limited, and Kniss Pharmaceuticals. Their insights highlight key obstacles related to approval timelines, bioequivalence studies, post-marketing surveillance, and patent regulations.

1. Approval Timelines and Delays

Regulatory agencies set clear timelines for ANDA approvals, but in practice, companies often experience delays due to repeated queries, additional documentation requirements, and evolving guidelines.

"The official approval timeline may be 12 months, but in reality, it often takes much longer due to back-and-forth communication with regulators." – (Industry Expert, Apex Pharma Private Limited)

The study found that actual approval times vary across jurisdictions:

• USA (FDA): ~18 months
• EU (EMA): ~12 months
• India (CDSCO): ~12+ months, often delayed

Industry professionals noted that such delays increase development costs and postpone market entry, making it difficult for companies to plan their product launches efficiently.

2. Challenges in Bioequivalence Studies

Bioequivalence (BE) studies are required for ANDA approvals, but differences in study design, acceptance criteria, and stability requirements create difficulties for manufacturers.

We often have to repeat bioequivalence studies for different regulatory agencies, even when the results are already well-established." – (Industry Expert, Manufacturers Pharma Formulation)

The study identified variations in BE requirements across regions:

• USA (FDA): 80.00–125.00% CI for C_max and AUC
• EU (EMA): Stricter criteria for highly variable drugs
• China (NMPA): More stringent bioequivalence parameters
• India (CDSCO): Similar to FDA but with local study requirements

Experts emphasized that these inconsistencies increase costs and delay approvals, as companies must conduct separate studies to meet region-specific criteria.

3. Post-Marketing Surveillance and Compliance Issues

Post-marketing surveillance (PMS) ensures drug safety after approval, but industry professionals noted challenges in compliance, data reporting, and enforcement.

"While post-marketing surveillance is mandatory, follow-ups and enforcement vary, making it difficult to predict regulatory expectations." – (Industry Expert, Kniss Pharmaceuticals)

This aligns with findings from the study:

• USA (FDA – FAERS) and EU (EMA – GVP): Well-established PMS systems
• India (PvPI) and China’s PMS system: Underreporting and inconsistent enforcement

Experts pointed out that inconsistent pharmacovigilance reporting and lack of standardized digital systems limit the effectiveness of post-marketing surveillance efforts.

4. Patent Barriers and Market Access Challenges

Patent exclusivity and legal challenges often delay generic drug approvals, even after regulatory requirements are met.

"Even after successfully filing an ANDA, patent-related delays prevent timely market entry." – (Industry Expert, Itaan Pharma Private Limited)

The study found that:

• USA (Hatch-Waxman Act): Grants 180-day exclusivity to first generic filers, delaying competitors.
• China: Implements a patent linkage system, preventing generic approvals before innovator patents expire.
• EU: Follows a decentralized process, requiring additional national-level approvals.

Industry professionals highlighted that such legal barriers reduce competition and delay patient access to affordable medicines.

5. Industry Challenges and the Need for Regulatory Adaptation

Comparing industry insights with regulatory frameworks reveals that while agencies aim to streamline ANDA approvals, companies still face delays, inconsistencies in bioequivalence standards, challenges in post-marketing surveillance, and legal hurdles due to patent exclusivity.

These insights highlight the need for regulatory adaptation to:

• Reduce approval delays by ensuring more predictable and transparent review processes.
• Align bioequivalence study requirements to minimize unnecessary duplication.
• Improve post-marketing surveillance enforcement for better drug safety monitoring.
• Balance patent protection with generic competition to enhance market access.

By addressing these industry concerns, regulatory agencies can improve the efficiency of ANDA approvals, ensuring faster availability of cost-effective generic medicine

CONCLUSION

Generic drug manufacturers play a critical role in making healthcare more affordable by providing cost-effective alternatives to brand-name drugs. These drugs undergo rigorous testing and regulation to ensure they meet the same safety and efficacy standards as their branded counterparts, with any differences typically limited to excipients. A comprehensive understanding of regulatory guidelines is crucial for pharmaceutical companies and researchers to navigate the complex regulatory landscape effectively. Strengthening this knowledge will contribute to the global availability of high-quality generic medicines, ultimately improving healthcare affordability and access.

CONFLICT OF INTEREST:

The authors have no conflicts of interest regarding this investigation.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS:

The authors would like to thank Sapna Srikumar the principal of Ahalia School of  Pharmacy for her guidance and support.

REFERENCES

1. Alasmari M S et al. Model-informed drug discovery and development approaches to inform clinical trial design and regulatory decisions: A primer for the MENA region. Saudi Pharmaceutical Journal.2024 Nov 27;32(12):102207.
2. Sun D, Gao W, Hu H, Zhou S. Why 90% of clinical drug development fails and how to improve it?. Acta Pharmaceutica Sinica B.2022 Feb 11;12(7):3049-3062.
3. Kaitin K I. Deconstructing the Drug Development Process: The New Face of Innovation. American Society for Clinical Pharmacology & Therapeutics.2010 Feb 03;87(3):356–361.
4. Patel B D , Suthar S P, Mansuri A M, Joshi V D. A Comparative Analysis of Generic Drug Assessment and Regulatory Approval in the USA, Europe and India. Zhongguo Yingyong Shenglixue zazhi. 2024 Oct 10;40:e20240029.
5. Handoo S, Arora V, Khera D, Nandi P K, Sahu S K. A comprehensive study on regulatory requirements for development and filing of generic drugs globally. International Journal of Pharmaceutical Investigation 2012;3(2):99-105.
6. Joseph K, Hakeem S, Zhang L, Jiang W. Global harmonization of immediate-release solid oral drug product bioequivalence recommendations and the impact on generic drug development. Clinical Translational Science. 2023;16:2756–2764.
7. Gupta R, Shah N D, Ross J S. Generic Drugs in the United States: Policies To Address Pricing and Competition. American Society for Clinical Pharmacology & Therapeutics.2018 Nov 24;105(2):329–337.
8. Karalis V, Symillides M, Macheras P. On the leveling-off properties of the new bioequivalence limits for highly variable drugs of the EMA guideline. European Journal of Pharmaceutical Sciences 2011 Sep 16;44:497-505.
9. Aivalli P K et al. Perceptions of the quality of generic medicines: implications for trust in public services within the local health system in Tumkur, India. British Medical Journal Global Health. 2018 Jan 13;2(Suppl 3):e000644.
10. Li P, Wang S, Chen Y. Use of Real?World Evidence for Drug Regulatory Decisions in China: Current Status and Future Directions. Therapeutic Innovation & Regulatory Science 2023; 57:1167–1179.
11. Qu J et al. Knowledge, perceptions and practices of pharmacists regarding generic substitution in China: a cross-sectional study. British Medical Journal Open 2021;11:e051277.
12. Liu Q et al. Common Deficiencies with Bioequivalence Submissions in Abbreviated New Drug Applications Assessed by FDA. American Association of Pharmaceutical Scientists Journal 2011 Dec 1;14(1):19–22.
13. Wang Z, Ahluwalia K, Newman B, Dhapare S, Zhao L, Luke M C. Medication Cost-Savings and Utilization of Generic Inhaled Corticosteroid (ICS) and Long-Acting Beta-Agonist (LABA) Drug Products in the USA. Therapeutic Innovation and Regulatory Science. 2022 Feb 3;56(2):346–357.
14. Conti R M, Berndt E R. Four Facts Concerning Competition in U.S. Generic Prescription Drug Markets. International Journal of the Economics of Business. 2019 Sep 5;27(1):27–48.
15. Jiao K, Gupta R, Fox E, Kesselheim A, Ross J S. Characteristics of Recent Generic Drug Approvals by the US Food and Drug Administration. Journal of the American Medical Association Network Open. 2019 Oct 11;2(10):e1913029.
16. Klein K, Borchard G, Shah V P, Fluhmann B, McNeil S E, Vlieger J S B. A pragmatic regulatory approach for complex generics through the U.S. FDA 505(j) or 505(b)(2) approval pathways. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences. 2021 Jul 22;1502(1):5–13.
17. Sullivan J O, Blake K, Berntgen M, Salmonson T, Welink J. Overview of the European Medicines Agency's Development of Product?Specific Bioequivalence Guidelines. Clin Pharmacology & Therapeutics. 2018 Jan 9;104(3):539–545.
18. Sandeep D S. How generic drugs are registered in Europe, United Kingdom, Australia and New Zealand? - A drug regulatory perspective. International Journal of Pharmaceutical Investigation 2023;13(3):440-445.
19. Hakariya H, Moriarty F, Ozaki A, Mulinari S, Saito H, Tanimoto T. Continued cancer drug approvals in Japan and Europe after market withdrawal in the United States: A comparative study of accelerated approvals. Clinical Translational Science. 2024 Jul 10;17(7):e13879.
20. Pan J et al. List prices and clinical value of anticancer drugs in China, Japan, and South Korea: a retrospective comparative study. Lancet Regional Health- Western Pacific. 2024 May 16;47:101088.
21. Jayaraman D et al. Experience with Generic Pegylated L-asparaginase in Children with Acute Lymphoblastic Leukemia from a Tertiary Care Oncology Center in South India. South Asian Journal of Cancer. 2023 Apr 10;12(4):371–377.
22. Zhang S Y et al. Evaluation of blood pressure lowering effect by generic and brand-name antihypertensive drugs treatment: a multicenter prospective study in China. Chinese Medical Journal (English edition). 2021 Jan 19;134(3):292–301.
23. Kharasch E D. et al. Bioequivalence and therapeutic equivalence of generic and brand bupropion in adults with major depression: A randomized clinical trial. Clinical Pharmacology & Therapeutics.;105(5):1164-1174.
24. Hansen R A et al. Comparison of generic-to-brand switchback patterns for generic and authorized generic drugs. Pharmacotherapy. 2017 April ; 37(4): 429–437.
25. Huang B, Barber S L, Xu M, Cheng S. Make up a missed lesson-New policy to ensure the interchangeability of generic drugs in China. Pharmaceutical Research Per. 2017;5(3): e00318.
26. Wouters J, Kanavos P G, McKee M. Comparing Generic Drug Markets in Europe and the United States: Prices, Volumes, and Spending. Milbank Quarterly 2017 Sep 12;95(3):554–601.
27. Davit B M, Kanfer I, Tsang Y C, Cardot J M. BCS Biowaivers: Similarities and Differences Among EMA,FDA, and WHO Requirements. American Association of Pharmaceutical Scientists Journal. 2016 Mar 4;18(3):612–618.
28. Kaur P, Jiang X, Duan J, Stier E. Applications of In Vitro–In Vivo Correlations in Generic Drug Development: Case Studies. American Association of Pharmaceutical Scientists Journal. 2015 Apr 22;17(4):1035–1039.
29. Lee S L et al. Regulatory Considerations for Approval of Generic Inhalation Drug Products in the US, EU, Brazil, China, and India. American Association of Pharmaceutical Scientists Journal. 2015 May 23;17(5):1285–1304.
30. Braddy A C, Davit B M, Stier E M, Conner D P. Survey of International Regulatory Bioequivalence Recommendations for Approval of Generic Topical Dermatological Drug Products. American Association of Pharmaceutical Scientists Journal. 2014 Oct 25;17(1):121–133.
31. Karalis V, Bialer M, Macheras P. Quantitative assessment of the switchability of generic products. European Journal of Pharmaceutical Sciences 2013;50:476–483.
32. Karalis V, Macheras P, Bialer M. Generic Products of Antiepileptic Drugs: A Perspective on Bioequivalence, Bioavailability, and Formulation Switches Using Monte Carlo Simulations.CNS Drugs.2014;28:69–77.
33. Galgatte U C, Jamdade V R, Aute P P, Chaudhari P D. Study on requirements of bioequivalence for registration of pharmaceutical products in USA, Europe and Canada. Saudi Pharmaceutical Journal 2013 May 31;22(5):391–402.
34. Liu J et al. Relative bioavailability and pharmacokinetic comparison of two different enteric formulations of omeprazole. Journal of Zhejiang University- Science B. 2012 May;13(5):348–355.
35. Johnston A et al. Generic and therapeutic substitution: a viewpoint on achieving best practice in Europe by Johnston et al. British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology 2011 Nov;72(5):733–734.
36. Singal G L, Nanda A, Kotwani A. A comparative evaluation of price and quality of some branded versus branded–generic medicines of the same manufacturer in India. Indian Journal of Pharmacology 2011 Apr;43(2):131–136.
37. Simoens S. Generic medicine pricing in Europe:current issues and future perspective. Journal of Medical Economics.2008;11(1):171-5.
38. Liu J P. Bridging Bioequivalence Studies. Journal of Biopharmaceutical Statistics 2004;14(4):8.