Bioequivalence studies in Europe before and after 2010

References

• European Medicines Agency (EMA). CHMP. Guideline on the investigation of bioequivalence. London: European Medicines Agency; 2010
   Google Scholar
• European Medicines Agency (EMA). CPMP. Note for guidance on the investigation of bioavailability and bioequivalence. London: European Medicines Agency; 2010
   Google Scholar
• Niazi S. Handbook of bioequivalence testing. New York: Informa Healthcare; 2007
   Google Scholar
• European Medicines Agency (EMA). CPMP. Note for guidance on the investigation of bioavailability and bioequivalence. Brussels: European Medicines Agency; 1991
   Google Scholar
• CPMP. Note for guidance on the clinical requirements for locally applied, locally acting products containing known constituents. London: CPMP; 1995
   Google Scholar
• European Medicines Agency (EMA). CPMP. Note for guidance on the investigation of bioavailability and bioequivalence. Draft. London: European Medicines Agency; 1998
   Google Scholar
• European Medicines Agency (EMA). CPMP. Note for guidance on quality of modified release products: A: oral dosage forms B: transdermal dosage forms: Section I (quality). London: European Medicines Agency; 1999
   Google Scholar
• European Medicines Agency (EMA). CPMP. Note for guidance on modified release oral and transdermal dosage forms: section II (pharmacokinetic and clinical evaluation). London: European Medicines Agency; 1999
   Google Scholar
• European Medicines Agency (EMA). CHMP. Note for guidance on the evaluation of the pharmacokinetics of medicinal products in patients with impaired renal function. London: European Medicines Agency; 2004
   Google Scholar
• European Medicines Agency (EMA). CHMP. Guideline on the evaluation of the pharmacokinetics of medicinal products in patients with impaired hepatic function. London: European Medicines Agency; 2005
   Google Scholar
• European Medicines Agency (EMA). CPMP. Points to consider on missing data. London: European Medicines Agency; 2001
   Google Scholar
• European Medicines Agency (EMA). CHMP. CHMP Efficacy Working Party. Therapeutic subgroup on pharmacokinetics (EWP-PK). Questions & answers on the bioavailability and bioequivalence guideline. London: European Medicines Agency; 2006
   Google Scholar
• European Commission. Notice to applicants. Volume 2A. Procedures for marketing authorization. Chapter 1. Marketing Authorisation. Brussels: European Commission; 2005
   Google Scholar
• European Commission. Notice to applicants. Medicinal products for human use. Volume 2B. Module 1: administrative information. Application form. Brussels: European Commission; 2007
   Google Scholar
• The European Parliament and the Council of the European Union. Directive 2001/83/EC of the European parliament and of the council of 6 November 2001 on the community code relating to medicinal products for human use. Brussels: The European Parliament and the Council of the European Union; 2001
   Google Scholar
• The European Parliament and the Council of the European Union. Directive 2002/98/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 January 2003 setting standards of quality and safety for the collection, testing, processing, storage and distribution of human blood and blood components and amending Directive 2001/83/EC. Brussels: The European Parliament and the Council of the European Union; 2002
   Google Scholar
• The European Parliament and the Council of the European Union. Directive 2004/24/EC of the European Parliament and the Council of 31 March 2004 amending, as regards traditional herbal medicinal products, Directive 2001/83/EC on the Community code relating to medicinal products for human use. Brussels: The European Parliament and the Council of the European Union; 2004
   Google Scholar
• The European Parliament and the Council of the European Union. Directive 2004/27/EC of the European Parliament and the Council of 31 March 2004 amending Directive 2001/83/EC on the Community code relating to medicinal products for human use. Brussels: European Parliament; 2004
   Google Scholar
• Garcia-Arieta A, Gordon J. Bioequivalence requirements in the European Union: critical discussion. AAPS J 2012;14:738–48
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Morais JA, Lobato Mdo R. The new European Medicines Agency guideline on the investigation of bioequivalence. Basic Clin Pharmacol Toxicol 2010;106:221–5
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chen ML, Shah VP, Crommelin DJ, et al. Harmonization of regulatory approaches for evaluating therapeutic equivalence and interchangeability of multisource drug products: workshop summary report. Eur J Pharm Sci 2011;44:506–13
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Karalis V, Macheras P. Current regulatory approaches of bioequivalence testing. Expert Opin Drug Metab Toxicol 2012;8:929–42
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Marzo A, Fontana E. Critical considerations into the new EMA guideline on bioequivalence. Arzneimittelforschung 2011;61:207–20
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• European Medicines Agency (EMA). CHMP. Questions & answers: positions on specific questions addressed to the pharmacokinetics working party. London: European Medicines Agency; 2014
   Google Scholar
• Bois FY, Tozer TN, Hauck WW, et al. Bioequivalence: performance of several measures of extent of absorption. Pharm Res 1994;11:715–22
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bois FY, Tozer TN, Hauck WW, et al. Bioequivalence: performance of several measures of rate of absorption. Pharm Res 1994;11:966–74
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chen ML, Lesko L, Williams RL. Measures of exposure versus measures of rate and extent of absorption. Clin Pharmacokinet 2001;40:565–72
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chen ML. An alternative approach for assessment of rate of absorption in bioequivalence studies. Pharm Res 1992;9:1380–5
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Endrenyi L, Csizmadia F, Tothfalusi L, et al. The duration of measuring partial AUCs for the assessment of bioequivalence. Pharm Res 1998;15:399–404
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tozer TN, Bois FY, Hauck WW, et al. Absorption rate vs. exposure: which is more useful for bioequivalence testing? Pharm Res 1996;13:453–6
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schuirmann DJ. A comparison of the two one-sided tests procedure and the power approach for assessing the equivalence of average bioavailability. J Pharmacokinet Biopharm 1987;15:657–80
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• McGilveray IJ, Midha KK, Skelly JP, et al. 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 HH, Midha KK. Bio-International 92, conference on bioavailability, bioequivalence, and pharmacokinetic studies. J Pharm Sci 1993;82:1186–9
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Blume HH, Elze M, Potthast H, Schug BS. Practical strategies and design advantages in highly variable drug studies: multiple dose and replicate administration design. In: Blume HH, Midha KK, editors. Bio-International 2: bioavailability, bioequivalence, and pharmacokinetic studies. Germany: Medpharm Scientific Publishers; 1995. p 117–22
   Google Scholar
• Anderson S, Hauck WW. Consideration of individual bioequivalence. J Pharmacokinet Biopharm 1990;18:259–73
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Endrenyi L, Amidon GL, Midha KK, Skelly JP. Individual bioequivalence: attractive in principle, difficult in practice. Pharm Res 1998;15:1321–5
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Midha KK, Rawson MJ, Hubbard JW. Individual and average bioequivalence of highly variable drugs and drug products. J Pharm Sci 1997;86:1193–7
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Patnaik RN, Lesko LJ, Chen ML, Williams RL. Individual bioequivalence. New concepts in the statistical assessment of bioequivalence metrics. FDA Individual Bioequivalence Working Group. Clin Pharmacokinet 1997;33:1–6
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schall R, Luus HG. On population and individual bioequivalence. Stat Med 1993;12:1109–24
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Boddy AW, Snikeris FC, Kringle RO, et al. 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
• Midha KK, Rawson MJ, Hubbard JW. Bioequivalence: switchability and scaling. Eur J Pharm Sci 1998;6:87–91
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tothfalusi L, Endrenyi L, Midha KK. Scaling or wider bioequivalence limits for highly variable drugs and for the special case of C(max). Int J Clin Pharmacol Ther 2003;41:217–25
   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
• 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
• 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, Symillides M. Novel scaled bioequivalence limits with leveling-off properties. Pharm Res 2006;23:2657–64
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Haidar SH, Davit B, Chen ML, et al. Bioequivalence approaches for highly variable drugs and drug products. Pharm Res 2008;25:237–41
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Haidar SH, Makhlouf F, Schuirmann DJ, et al. Evaluation of a scaling approach for the bioequivalence of highly variable drugs. AAPS J 2008;10:450–4
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Karalis V, Symillides M, Macheras P. Bioequivalence of highly variable drugs: a comparison of the newly proposed regulatory approaches by FDA and EMA. Pharm Res 2012;29:1066–77
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tothfalusi L, Endrenyi L. Sample sizes for designing bioequivalence studies for highly variable drugs. J Pharm Pharm Sci 2012;15:73–84
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER). Bioavailability and bioequivalence studies for orally administered drug products: general considerations. Rockville, MD: Food and Drug Administration; 2003
   Google Scholar
• Shah VP, Yacobi A, Barr WH, et al. Evaluation of orally administered highly variable drugs and drug formulations. Pharm Res 1996;13:1590–4
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lachin JM. Statistical properties of randomization in clinical trials. Control Clin Trials 1988;9:289–311
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Demets DL. Group sequential procedures: calendar versus information time. Stat Med 1989;8:1191–8
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shih WJ. Group sequential, sample size re-estimation and two-stage adaptive designs in clinical trials: a comparison. Stat Med 2006;25:933–41
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pong A, Chow S. Handbook of adaptive designs in pharmaceutical and clinical development. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press/Taylor and Francis Group; 2011
   Google Scholar
• Pocock SJ. Size of cancer clinical trials and stopping rules. Br J Cancer 1978;38:757–66
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Potvin D, DiLiberti CE, Hauck WW, et al. Sequential design approaches for bioequivalence studies with crossover designs. Pharm Stat 2008;7:245–62
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Montague TH, Potvin D, Diliberti CE, et al. Additional results for ‘Sequential design approaches for bioequivalence studies with crossover designs'. Pharm Stat 2012;11:8–13
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fuglsang A. Sequential bioequivalence trial designs with increased power and controlled type I error rates. AAPS J 2013;15:659–61
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fuglsang A. Futility rules in bioequivalence trials with sequential designs. AAPS J 2014;16:79–82
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fuglsang A. Sequential bioequivalence approaches for parallel designs. AAPS J 2014;16:373–8
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fuglsang A. A sequential bioequivalence design with a potential ethical advantage. AAPS J 2014;16:843–6
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Karalis V, Macheras P. An insight into the properties of a two-stage design in bioequivalence studies. Pharm Res 2013;30:1824–35
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Karalis V. The role of the upper sample size limit in two-stage bioequivalence designs. Int J Pharm 2013;456:87–94
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Karalis V, Macheras P. On the statistical model of the two-stage designs in bioequivalence assessment. J Pharm Pharmacol 2014;66:48–52
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Amidon GL, Lennernas H, Shah VP, Crison JR. 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
• Chen ML, Amidon GL, Benet LZ, et al. The BCS, BDDCS, and regulatory guidances. Pharm Res 2011;28:1774–8
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dahan A, Miller JM, Amidon GL. Prediction of solubility and permeability class membership: provisional BCS classification of the world's top oral drugs. AAPS J 2009;11:740–6
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wu CY, 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
• Macheras P, Karalis V. A non-binary biopharmaceutical classification of drugs: the ABGamma system. Int J Pharm 2014;464:85–90
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chen ML, Jackson AJ. 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 AJ. 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
• Fernandez-Teruel C, Gonzalez-Alvarez I, Navarro-Fontestad C, et al. 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
• Fernandez-Teruel C, Nalda Molina R, Gonzalez-Alvarez I, et al. 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
• Karalis V, Macheras P. Examining the role of metabolites in bioequivalence assessment. J Pharm Pharm Sci 2010;13:198–217
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Midha KK, Rawson MJ, Hubbard JW. The role of metabolites in bioequivalence. Pharm Res 2004;21:1331–44
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Midha KK, Shah VP, Singh GJ, Patnaik R. Conference report: Bio-International 2005. J Pharm Sci 2007;96:747–54
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Torrado JJ, Blanco M, Farre M, et al. Rationale and conditions for the requirement of chiral bioanalytical methods in bioequivalence studies. Eur J Clin Pharmacol 2010;66:599–604
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Garcia Arieta A. Reasons to use stereoselective assay methods. Chirality 2012;24:499
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Marzo A, Heftmann E. Enantioselective analytical methods in pharmacokinetics with specific reference to genetic polymorphic metabolism. J Biochem Biophys Methods 2002;54:57–70
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• European Medicines Agency (EMA). CHMP. Guideline on bioanalytical method validation. London: European Medicines Agency; 2011
   Google Scholar
• Welling PG. Influence of food and diet on gastrointestinal drug absorption: a review. J Pharmacokinet Biopharm 1977;5:291–334
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Chen ML, Straughn AB, Sadrieh N, et al. A modern view of excipient effects on bioequivalence: case study of sorbitol. Pharm Res 2007;24:73–80
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• European Medicines Agency (EMA). CHMP. Reflection paper on the data requirements for intravenous liposomal products developed with reference to an innovator liposomal product. London: European Medicines Agency; 2013
   Google Scholar
• European Medicines Agency (EMA). CHMP. On the pharmaceutical development of intravenous medicinal products containing active substances solubilised in micellar systems. London: European Medicines Agency; 2011
   Google Scholar
• European Medicines Agency (EMA). CHMP. Sunitinib Product-Specific Bioequivalence Guidance (draft). London: European Medicines Agency; 2013
   Google Scholar
• European Medicines Agency (EMA). CHMP. Capecitabine Product-Specific Bioequivalence Guidance. London: European Medicines Agency; 2013
   Google Scholar
• European Medicines Agency (EMA). CHMP. Dasatinib Product-Specific Bioequivalence Guidance. London: European Medicines Agency; 2013
   Google Scholar
• Marzo A. Open questions on bioequivalence: an updated reappraisal. Curr Clin Pharmacol 2007;2:179–89
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Schellekens H, Klinger E, Muhlebach S, et al. The therapeutic equivalence of complex drugs. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol 2011;59:176–83
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schellekens H, Stegemann S, Weinstein V, et al. How to regulate nonbiological complex drugs (NBCD) and their follow-on versions: points to consider. AAPS J 2014;16:15–21
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pippa N, Pispas S, Demetzos C. The fractal hologram and elucidation of the structure of liposomal carriers in aqueous and biological media. Int J Pharm 2012;430:65–73
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• European Medicines Agency (EMA). CHMP. Reflection paper on non-clinical studies for generic nanoparticle iron medicinal product applications. London: European Medicines Agency; 2011
   Google Scholar
• European Medicines Agency (EMA). CHMP. Reflection paper on the data requirements for intravenous iron-based nano-colloidal products developed with reference to an innovator medicinal product. London: European Medicines Agency; 2013
   Google Scholar
• Yacobi A, Shah VP, Bashaw ED, et al. Current challenges in bioequivalence, quality, and novel assessment technologies for topical products. Pharm Res 2014;31:837–46
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• European Medicines Agency (EMA). EMA/CMDh. CMDh questions & answers generic applications. London: European Medicines Agency; 2012
   Google Scholar
• Yang Y, Shah RB, Yu LX, Khan MA. In vitro bioequivalence approach for a locally acting gastrointestinal drug: lanthanum carbonate. Mol Pharm 2013;10:544–50
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wilding I. Bioequivalence testing for locally acting gastrointestinal products: what role for gamma scintigraphy? J Clin Pharmacol 2002;42:1200–10
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• European Medicines Agency (EMA). CHMP. Concept paper on the development of a guideline on the demonstration of therapeutic equivalence for locally applied and locally acting products in the gastrointestinal tract. London: European Medicines Agency; 2013
   Google Scholar
• Klingel R, Heibges A, Fassbender C. Neurologic diseases of the central nervous system with pathophysiologically relevant autoantibodies–perspectives for immunoadsorption. Atheroscler Suppl 2013;14:161–5
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Milo R. The efficacy and safety of daclizumab and its potential role in the treatment of multiple sclerosis. Ther Adv Neurol Disord 2014;7:7–21
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Garcia-Arieta A, Blazquez A. Regulatory considerations for generic or biosimilar low molecular weight heparins. Curr Drug Discov Technol 2012;9:137–42
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Dranitsaris G, Amir E, Dorward K. Biosimilars of biological drug therapies: regulatory, clinical and commercial considerations. Drugs 2011;71:1527–36
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• European Medicines Agency (EMA). CHMP. Guideline on Similar biological medicinal products. London: European Medicines Agency; 2005
   Google Scholar
• European Medicines Agency (EMA). CHMP. Guideline on similar biological medicinal products containing biotechnology-derived proteins as active substance: non-clinical and clinical issues. London: European Medicines Agency; 2006
   Google Scholar
• European Medicines Agency (EMA). CHMP. Guideline on similar biological medicinal products containing biotechnology-derived proteins as active substance: quality issues. London: European Medicines Agency; 2006
   Google Scholar
• European Medicines Agency (EMA). CHMP. Guidance on similar medicinal products containing recombinant granulocyte-colony stimulating factor. London: European Medicines Agency; 2006
   Google Scholar
• European Medicines Agency (EMA). CHMP. Guidance on similar medicinal products containing Somatropin. London: European Medicines Agency; 2006
   Google Scholar
• European Medicines Agency (EMA). CHMP. Guidance on similar medicinal products containing recombinant human soluble insulin. London: European Medicines Agency; 2006
   Google Scholar
• European Medicines Agency (EMA). CHMP. Reflection paper: non-clinical and clinical development of similar medicinal products containing recombinant interferon alfa. London: European Medicines Agency; 2009
   Google Scholar
• European Medicines Agency (EMA). CHMP. Guideline on non-clinical and clinical development of similar biological medicinal products containing recombinant erythropoietins (Revision). London: European Medicines Agency; 2010
   Google Scholar
• European Medicines Agency (EMA). CHMP. Questions and answers on biosimilar medicines (similar biological medicinal products). London: European Medicines Agency; 2012
   Google Scholar
• European Medicines Agency (EMA). CHMP. Guideline on similar biological medicinal products containing monoclonal antibodies – non-clinical and clinical issues. London: European Medicines Agency; 2012
   Google Scholar
• European Medicines Agency (EMA). CHMP. Guideline on non-clinical and clinical development of similar biological medicinal products containing recombinant human follicle stimulating hormone (r-hFSH). London: European Medicines Agency; 2013
   Google Scholar
• European Medicines Agency (EMA). CHMP. Guideline on non-clinical and clinical development of similar biological medicinal products containing recombinant human insulin and insulin analogues (draft). London: European Medicines Agency; 2014
   Google Scholar
• European Medicines Agency (EMA). CHMP. Guideline on similar biological medicinal products containing interferon beta. London: European Medicines Agency; 2013
   Google Scholar
• European Medicines Agency (EMA). CHMP. Guideline on non-clinical and clinical development of similar biological medicinal products containing low molecular-weight-heparins (draft). London: European Medicines Agency; 2013
   Google Scholar
• Bertrand J, Comets E, Mentre F. Comparison of model-based tests and selection strategies to detect genetic polymorphisms influencing pharmacokinetic parameters. J Biopharm Stat 2008;18:1084–102
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bertrand J, Comets E, Laffont CM, et al. Pharmacogenetics and population pharmacokinetics: impact of the design on three tests using the SAEM algorithm. J Pharmacokinet Pharmacodyn 2009;36:317–39
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wilffert B, Swen J, Mulder H, et al. From evidence based medicine to mechanism based medicine. Reviewing the role of pharmacogenetics. Int J Clin Pharm 2011;33:3–9
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wilffert B, Swen J, Mulder H, et al. From evidence based medicine to mechanism based medicine. Reviewing the role of pharmacogenetics. Int J Clin Pharm 2013;35:369–75
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zhao XY, Xu HM, Zhou Q. Sampling times and genotyping concerns in bioequivalence evaluation of branded and generic formulations. Ther Clin Risk Manag 2013;9:463–8
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gonzalez-Vacarezza N, Abad-Santos F, Carcas-Sansuan A, et al. Use of pharmacogenetics in bioequivalence studies to reduce sample size: an example with mirtazapine and CYP2D6. Pharmacogenomics J 2013;13:452–5
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• European Medicines Agency (EMA). CHMP. Guideline on the use of pharmacogenetic methodologies in the pharmacokinetic evaluation of medicinal products. London: European Medicines Agency; 2011
   Google Scholar
• Stegemann S, Klebovich I, Antal I, et al. Improved therapeutic entities derived from known generics as an unexplored source of innovative drug products. Eur J Pharm Sci 2011;44:447–54
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Navarro-Fontestad C, Gonzalez-Alvarez I, Fernandez-Teruel C, et al. Computer simulations for bioequivalence trials: selection of analyte in BCS drugs with first-pass metabolism and two metabolic pathways. Eur J Pharm Sci 2010;41:716–28
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Karalis V, Bialer M, Macheras P. Quantitative assessment of the switchability of generic products. Eur J Pharm Sci 2013;50:476–83
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Endrenyi L, Tothfalusi L. Metrics for the evaluation of bioequivalence of modified-release formulations. AAPS J 2012;14:813–19
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Endrenyi L, Tothfalusi L. Determination of bioequivalence for drugs with narrow therapeutic index: reduction of the regulatory burden. J Pharm Pharm Sci 2013;16:676–82
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Paixao P, Gouveia LF, Morais JA. An alternative single dose parameter to avoid the need for steady-state studies on oral extended-release drug products. Eur J Pharm Biopharm 2012;80:410–17
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar