Novel methods to assess bioequivalence

Bibliography

• Gibaldi M. Biopharmaceutics and clinical pharmacokinetics, 4th edition. Lea and Lea Febiger, Philadelphia; 1991
   Google Scholar
• Morrison A, Chapman D, Campbell J. Further studies on the relation between in vitro disintegration time of tablets and the urinary excretion rates of riboflavin. J Am Pharm Assoc 1959;48:634-7
   Google Scholar
• Morrison A, Campbell J. The relationship between physiological availability of salicylates and riboflavin and in vitro disintegration time of enteric coated tablets. J Am Pharm Assoc 1960;49:473-8
   Google Scholar
• Middleton E, Davies J, Morrison A. Relationship between rate of dissolution, disintegration time, and physiological availability of riboflavin in sugar-coated tablets. J Pharm Sci 1964;53:1378-80
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Levy G. Comparison of dissolution and absorption rates of different commercial aspirin tablets. J Pharm Sci 1961;50:388-92
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Levy G. Effect of particle size on dissolution and gastrointestinal absorption rates of pharmaceuticals. Am J Pharm Sci 1963;135:78-92
   Google Scholar
• Glazko A, Kinkel A, Alegnani W, Holmes E. An evaluation of the absorption characteristics of different chloramphenicol preparations in normal human subjects. Clin Pharmacol Ther 1968;9:472-83
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Federal Register 1969;34:2673
   Google Scholar
• Federal Register 1970;35:6574
   Google Scholar
• Federal Register 1977;42:1642
   Google Scholar
• European Medicines Agency (EMA), Evaluation of Medicines for Human Use, CPMP. Note for Guidance on the Investigation of Bioavailability and Bioequivalence, London, 2001
   Google Scholar
• European Medicines Agency (EMA), Evaluation of Medicines for Human Use, CHMP. Guideline on the investigation of Bioequivalence, London, 2010
   Google Scholar
• Food and Drug Administration. Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER), Bioavailability and Bioequivalence Studies for Orally Administered Drug Products, General Considerations, Rockville, MD, 2003
   Google Scholar
• Food and Drug Administration. Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER), Statistical Approaches to Establishing Bioequivalence, Rockville, MD, 2001
   Google Scholar
• Schuirmann D. A comparison of the two one-sided tests procedure and the power approach for assessing the equivalence of average bioavailability. J Pharmacokin Biopharm 1987;15:657-80
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Midha K, Rawson M, Hubbard J. Bioequivalence: switchability and scaling. Eur J Pharm Sci 1998;6:87-91
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McGilveray I, Midha K, Skelly J, Consensus report from “Bio-International ‘89”: issues in the evaluation of bioavailability data. J Pharm Sci 1990;79:945-6
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Blume H, Midha K. Bio-International ‘92, Conference on Bioavailability, Bioequivalence and Pharmacokinetic Studies. J Pharm Sci 1993;82:1186-9
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Blume H, Elze M, Potthast H, Practical strategies and design advantages in highly variable drug studies: multiple dose and replicate administration design. In: Blume H, Midha K, editors, Bio-international 2: bioavailability, bioequivalence and pharmacokinetic studies. Medpharm Scientific Publishers, Stuttgart; 1995. p. 117-22
   Google Scholar
• El-Tahtawy A, Jackson A, Ludden T. Comparison of single and multiple dose pharmacokinetics using clinical bioequivalence data and monte carlo simulations. Pharm Res 1994;11:1330-6
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• El-Tahtawy A, Jackson A, Ludden T. Evaluation of bioequivalence of highly variable drugs using monte carlo simulations. Part I: estimation of rate of absorption for single and multiple dose trials using Cmax. Pharm Res 1995;12:1634-41
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zha J, Tothfalusi L, Endrenyi L. Properties of metrics applied for the evaluation of bioequivalence. Drug Inf J 1995;29:989-96
   Google Scholar
• Jackson A. Prediction of steady-state bioequivalence relationships using single dose data I-linear kinetics. Biopharm Drug Dispos 1987;8:483-96
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shah V, Yacobi A, Barr W, Evaluation of orally administered highly variable drugs and drug formulations. Pharm Res 1996;13:1590-4
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Anderson S, Hauck W. Consideration of individual bioequivalence. J Pharmacokinet Biopharm 1990;18:259-73
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Schall R, Luus H. On population and individual bioequivalence. Stat Med 1993;12:1109-24
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Patnaik R, Lesko L, Chen ML, Williams R. Individual bioequivalence: new concepts in the statistical assessment of bioequivalence metrics. Clin Pharmacokin 1997;33:1-6
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Midha K, Rawson M, Hubbard J. Individual and average bioequivalence of highly variable drugs and drug products. J Pharm Sci 1997;86:1193-7
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Endrenyi L, Amidon G, Midha K, Individual bioequivalence: attractive in principle, difficult in practice. Pharm Res 1998;15:1321-5
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Midha K, Hubbard J, McKay G, The role of metabolites in a bioequivalence study II: amoxapine, 7-hydroxyamoxapine, and 8-hydroxyamoxapine. Int J Clin Pharmacol Ther 1999;37:428-38
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schall R, Williams R. Towards a practical strategy for assessing individual bioequivalence. J Pharmacokin Biopharm 1996;24:133-49
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Tothfalusi L, Endrenyi L, Midha K. Scaling or wider bioequivalence limits for highly variable drugs and for the special case of Cmax. Int J Clin Pharmacol Ther 2003;41:217-25
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hauck W, Parekh A, Lesko L, Limits of 80%-125% for AUC and 70%-143% for Cmax. What is the impact on the bioequivalence studies? Int J Clin Pharmacol Ther 2001;39:350-5
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Karalis V, Macheras P, Symillides M. Geometric Mean Ratio–dependent scaled bioequivalence limits with leveling-off properties. Eur J Pharm Sci 2005;26:54-61
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Boddy A, Snikeris F, Kringle R, An approach for widening the bioequivalence acceptance limits in the case of highly variable drugs. Pharm Res 1995;12:1865-8
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tothfalusi L, Endrenyi L. Limits for the scaled average bioequivalence of highly variable drugs and drug products. Pharm Res 2003;20:382-9
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schall R. A unified view of individual, population, and average bioequivalence. In: Blume H, Midha K, editors, Bio-international 2: bioavailability, bioequivalence and pharmacokinetic studies. Medpharm Scientific Publishers, Stuttgart; 1995. p. 91-106
   Google Scholar
• Tothfalusi L, Endrenyi L, Midha K, Evaluation of the bioequivalence of highly-variable drugs and drug products. Pharm Res 2001;18:728-33
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hyslop T, Hsuan F, Holder DJ. A small sample confidence interval approach to assess individual bioequivalence. Stat Med 2000;19:2885-97
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Karalis V, Symillides M, Macheras P. Novel scaled average bioequivalence limits based on GMR and variability considerations. Pharm Res 2004;21:1933-42
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kytariolos J, Karalis V, Macheras P, Novel scaled bioequivalence limits with leveling-off properties based on variability considerations. Pharm Res 2006;23:2657-64
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Haidar S, Davit B, Chen ML, Bioequivalence approaches for highly variable drugs and drug products. Pharm Res 2008;25:237-41
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Health Canada, Ministry of Health. Guidance for Industry: Conduct and Analysis of bioavailability and bioequivalence studies. Part A: Oral Dosage Formulations Used for Systemic Effects, 1992
   Google Scholar
• Food and Drug Administration. Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER), Waiver of in vivo bioavailability and bioequivalence studies for immediate-release solid oral dosage forms based on a biopharmaceutics classification system. Rockville, MD, 2000
   Google Scholar
• Amidon G, Lennernas H, Shah V, Crison J. A theoretical basis for a biopharmaceutic drug classification: the correlation of in vitro drug product dissolution and in vivo bioavailability. Pharm Res 1995;12:413-20
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wu C, Benet LZ. Predicting drug disposition via application of BCS: transport/absorption/elimination interplay and development of a biopharmaceutics drug disposition classification system. Pharm Res 2005;22:11-23
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Moore J, Flanner H. Mathematical comparison of curves with an emphasis on in vitro dissolution profiles. Pharm Tech 1996;20:64-74
   Google Scholar
• Shah V, Tsong Y, Sathe P. In vitro dissolution profile comparison – statistics and analysis of the similarity factor, f2. Pharm Res 1998;15:889-96
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Benet L. Predicting drug disposition via application of a biopharmaceutics drug disposition classification system. Basic Clin Pharmacol Toxicol 2010;106:162-7
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Custodio J, Wu C, Benet L. Predicting drug disposition, absorption/elimination/transporter interplay and the role of food on drug absorption. Adv Drug Deliv Rev 2008;60:717-33
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Houston J. Importance of metabolites in bioequivalence. In: McGilveray JJ, Dighe SV, French IW, et al, editors, Proceedings Bio-International 89: issues in the evaluation of bioavailability data. Toronto, Canada; 1989. p. 99-100
   Google Scholar
• Tucker G, Rostami A, Jackson P. Metabolite measurement in bioequivalence studies: Theoretical considerations. In: Midha KK, Blume H, editors, Bio-International: bioavailability, bioequivalence and pharmacokinetics. International Conference of FIP. “Bio-International'92”, Medpharm Scientific Publishers, Bad Homburg, Germany, Stuttgart; 1993. p. 163-70
   Google Scholar
• Jackson A, Robbie G, Marroum P. Metabolites and bioequivalence: past and present. Clin Pharmacokinet 2004;43:655-72
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Midha K, Rawson M, Hubbard J. The role of metabolites in bioequivalence. Pharm Res 2004;21:1331-44
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Midha K, Shah V, Singh G, Patnaik R. Conference report: Bio-International 2005. J Pharm Sci 2007;96:747-54
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• European Medicines Agency (EMA), Evaluation of Medicines for Human Use, CHMP efficacy working party] therapeutic subgroup on pharmacokinetics: Questions & Answers on the Bioavailability and Bioequivalence Guideline, London, 2006
   Google Scholar
• Midha K, Hubbard J, McKay G, The role of metabolites in a bioequivalence study 1: loxapine, 7-hydroxyloxapine and 8-hydroxyloxapine. Int J Clin Pharmacol Ther Toxicol 1993;31:177-83
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chen ML, Jackson A. The role of metabolites in bioequivalency assessment. I. Linear pharmacokinetics without first-pass effect. Pharm Res 1991;8:25-32
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chen ML, Jackson A. The role of metabolites in bioequivalency assessment. II. Drugs with linear pharmacokinetics and first-pass effect. Pharm Res 1995;12:700-8
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rosenbaum S, Lam J. Bioequivalence parameters of parent drug and its first-pass metabolite: comparative sensitivity to sources of pharmacokinetic variability. Drug Dev Indust Pharm 1997;23:337-44
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jackson A. The role of metabolites in bioequivalency assessment. III. Highly variable drugs with linear kinetics and first-pass effect. Pharm Res 2000;17:1432-6
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Braddy A, Jackson A. Role of metabolites for drugs that undergo nonlinear first-pass effect: impact on bioequivalency assessment using single-dose simulations. J Pharm Sci 2010;99:515-23
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fernandez-Teruel C, Nalda Molina R, Gonzalez-Alvarez I, Computer simulations of bioequivalence trials: selection of design and analyte in BCS drugs with first-pass hepatic metabolism: linear kinetics (I). Eur J Pharm Sci 2009;36:137-46
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fernandez-Teruel C, Gonzalez-Alvarez I, Navarro-Fontestad C, Computer simulations of bioequivalence trials: selection of design and analyte in BCS drugs with first-pass hepatic metabolism: Part II. Non-linear kinetics. Eur J Pharm Sci 2009;36:147-56
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Karalis V, Macheras P. Examining the role of metabolites in bioequivalence assessment. J Pharm Pharmaceut Sci 2010;13:198-217
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• European Medicines Agency (EMA), Evaluation of Medicines for Human Use, CHMP. Guideline on immunogenicity assessment of biotechnology-derived therapeutic proteins. London, 2007
   Google Scholar
• European Medicines Agency (EMA), Evaluation of Medicines for Human Use, CHMP. Guideline on similar biological medicinal products containing biotechnology-derived proteins as active substance: Quality issues, London, 2006
   Google Scholar
• European Medicines Agency (EMA), Evaluation of Medicines for Human Use, CHMP. Guidance on similar medicinal products containing recombinant erythropoietins. London, 2006
   Google Scholar
• European Medicines Agency (EMA), Evaluation of Medicines for Human Use, CHMP. Guidance on similar medicinal products containing recombinant human soluble insulin. London, 2006
   Google Scholar
• European Medicines Agency (EMA), Evaluation of Medicines for Human Use, CHMP. Guideline on development, production, characterization and specifications for monoclonal antibodies and related products. London, 2008
   Google Scholar
• Endrenyi L, Tothfalusi L. Regulatory and study conditions for the determination of bioequivalence of highly variable drugs. J Pharm Pharm Sci 2009;12:138-49
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Karalis V, Symillides M, Macheras P. Comparison of the reference scaled bioequivalence semi-replicate method with other approaches: focus on human exposure to drugs. Eur J Pharm Sci 2009;38:55-63
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bialer M, Midha KK. Generic products of antiepileptic drugs: a perspective on bioequivalence and interchangeability. Epilepsia 2010;51:941-50
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kytariolos J, Dokoumetzidis A, Macheras P. Power law IVIVC: an application of fractional kinetics for drug release and absorption. Eur J Pharm Sci 2010;41:299-304
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Polli J, Abrahamsson B, Yu L, Summary workshop report: bioequivalence, biopharmaceutics classification system, and beyond. AAPS J 2008;10:373-9
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar