Evaluation of Bioequivalence of Highly Variable Drugs

REFERENCES

• Blume HH, Midha KK. Bio-International 92, Conference on Bioavailability, Bioequivalence and Pharmacokinetic Studies. J Pharm Sci. 1993; 11: 1186–1189
   Google Scholar
• Blume HH, McGilveray IJ, Midha KK. Bio-International 94, Conference on Bioavailability, Bioequivalence and Pharmacokinetic Studies. Eur J Pharm Sci. 1995; 3: 113–124
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Midha KK, Nagai T, Blume HH, et al (1996) Conference Report: Bio-International ’96, Conference on Bioavailability, Bioequivalence and Pharmacokinetic Studies. Bioavailability, Bioequivalence and Pharmacokinetic Studies, TokyoJapan, April, 22–241996, KK Midha, T Nagai. Academic Societies Japan, Tokyo, 1–8
   Google Scholar
• Shah VP, Yacobi A, Barr WH, et al. Evaluation of orally administered drugs and drug formulations. Pharm Res. 1996; 13: 1590–1594
   PubMed Web of Science ®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: 657–680
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Benet L. Bioavailability and bioequivalence: definitions and difficulties in acceptance criteria. Bio-International, Bioavailability, Bioequivalence and Pharmacokinetics., KK Midha, HH Blume. Medpharm, Stuttgart 1993; 27–35
   Google Scholar
• Benet L. Individual bioequivalence: an overview. AAPS International Workshop on Individual Bioequivalence: Realities and Implementation. Montreal, Quebec Aug 30–Sep 1, 1999
   Google Scholar
• Ducharme MP, Potvin D. Understanding bioequivalence—the experience of a global contract research organization. Business Briefing: Pharmagenerics. 2003; 53–60
   Google Scholar
• Tsang YC, Pop R, Gordon P, et al. High variability in drug pharmacokinetics complicates determination of bioequivalence: experience with verapamil. Pharm Res. 1993; 13: 846–850
   Google Scholar
• Midha KK, Rawson MJ, Hubbard JW. The bioequivalence of highly variable drugs and drug products. Int J Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2005; 43: 485–98
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Health Canada. Conduct and Analysis of Bioavailability and Bioequivalence Studies—Part A: Oral Dosage Formulations Used for Systemic Effects. Health Protection Branch, Drugs Directorate, Ottawa 1992; 1–80
   Google Scholar
• CPMP. Note for Guidance on the Investigation of Bioavailability and Bioequivalence. European Agency for the Evaluation of Medicinal Products (EMEA), Committee for Proprietary Medicinal Products, London 2001; 1–22
   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: eds. Bio-International 2, Bioavailability, Bioequivalence and Pharmacokinetics, HH Blume, KK Midha. Medp‐harm, Stuttgart 1995; 117–122
   Google Scholar
• Schug BS, Elze M, Blume HH. Bioequivalence of highly variable drugs and drug products: steady state studies. In: eds. Bioavailability, Bioequivalence and Pharmacokinetic Studies, KK Midha, T Nagai. Academic Societies Japan, Tokyo 1996; 101–106
   Google Scholar
• El-Tahtawy AA, Jackson AJ, Ludden TM. Comparison of single and multiple dose pharmacokinetics using clinical bioequivalence data and Monte Carlo simulations. Pharm Res. 1994; 11: 1330–1336
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• El-Tahtawy AA, Jackson AJ, Ludden TM. Evaluation of bioequivalence of highly variable drugs using Monte Carlo simulations. Part 1. Estimation of rate of absorption for single and multiple dose trials using Cmax. Pharm Res. 1995; 12: 1634–1641
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zha J, Endrenyi L. Variation of the peak concentration following single and repeated drug administrations in investigations of bioavailability and bioequivalence. J Biopharm Stat 1997; 7: 191–204
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Zha J, Tothfalusi L, Endrenyi L. Properties of metrics applied for the evaluation of bioequivalence. Drug Information J. 1995; 29: 989–996
   Google Scholar
• FD A. Bioavailability and Bioequivalence Studies for Orally Administered Drug Products—General Considerations, Guidance for Industry. Food and Drug Administration, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER), Rockville, MD 2003; 1–46
   Google Scholar
• El-Tahtawy AA, Tozer TN, Harrison F, et al. Evaluation of bioequivalence of highly variable drugs using clinical trial simulations. II: Comparison of single and multiple-dose trials using AUC and Cmax. Pharm Res. 1998; 15: 98–104
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tothfalusi L, Endrenyi L. Estimation of Cmax and Tmax in populations after single and multiple drug administrations. J Pharmacokin Pharmacodyn. 2003; 30: 363–385
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Anderson S, Hauck WW. Consideration of individual bioequivalence. J Pharmacokin Biopharm. 1990; 18: 259–273
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Sheiner LB. Bioequivalence revisited. Stat Med. 1992; 11: 1777–1788
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schall R, Williams RL. Towards a practical strategy for assessing individual bioequivalence. J Pharmacokin Biopharm. 1996; 24: 133–149
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Schall R, Luus HE. On population and individual bioequivalence. Stat Med. 1993; 12: 1109–1124
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Patnaik RN, Lesko LJ, Chen ML, Williams RL. Individual bioequivalence: new concepts in the statististical assessment of bioequivalence metrics. Clin Pharmacokin. 1997; 33: 1–6
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• FDA. Statistical Approaches to Establishing Bioequivalence, Guidance for Industry. Food and Drug Administration, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER), Rockville, MD 2001; 1–48
   Google Scholar
• Boddy AW, Snikeris FC, Kringle RO, Wei GCG, Opperman JA, Midha KK. An approach for widening the bioequivalence acceptance limits in the case of highly variable drugs. Pharm Res. 1995; 12: 1865–1868
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schall R. A unified view of individual, population, and average bioequivalence. Bio-International 2, Bioavailability, Bioequivalence and Pharmacokinetics, HH Blume, KK Midha. Medpharm, Stuttgart 1995; 91–106
   Google Scholar
• Tothfalusi L, Endrenyi L, Midha KK, Rawson MJ, Hubbard JW. Evaluation of the bioequivalence of highly-variable drugs and drug products. Pharm Res. 2001; 18: 728–733
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chen ML. Individual bioequivalence—a regulatory update (with discussion). J Biopharm Stat. 1997; 7: 5–11
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/ac/04/slides/4034s2.htm
   Google Scholar
• Medicines Control Council of South Africa. Biostudies. PretoriaSouth Africa 2003; 1–18
   Google Scholar
• Kanfer I, Skinner MF, Walker RB. Guidelines for bioavailability and bioequivalence: an innovative South African approach. BioInternational, London 2003
   Google Scholar
• EMEA. Concept Paper for an Addendum to the Note for Guidance on the Investigation of Bioavailability and Bioequivalence: Evaluation of Bioequivalence of Highly Variable Drugs and Drug Products. April 27, 2006
   Google Scholar
• Schall R. Assessment of individual and population bioequivalence using the probability that bioavailabilities are similar. Biometrics. 1995; 51: 615–26
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wellek S. On a reasonable disaggregate criterion of population bioequivalence admitting of resampling-free testing procedures. Stat Med. 2000; 19: 2755–2767
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Steinijans VW. Some conceptual issues in the evaluation of average, population, and individual bioequivalence. Drug Information J. 2001; 35: 893–899
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wellek S. Testing Statistical Hypotheses of Equivalence. Chapman & Hall/CRC, Boca Raton, London 2003
   Google Scholar
• Chow S-C, Liu J-P. Design and Analysis of Bioavailability and Bioequivalence Studies. 2nd. Marcel Dekker, New York, Basel 2000
   Google Scholar
• Patterson S, Jones B. Bioequivalence and Statistics in Clinical Pharmacology. Chapman & Hall/CRC, Boca Raton, London 2006
   Google Scholar
• Tothfalusi L, Endrenyi L. Limits for the scaled average bioequivalence of highly variable drugs and drug products. Pharm Res. 2003; 20: 382–389
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Midha KK, Rawson M, Hubbard JW, Ormsby ED. Practical strategies and design advantages for highly variable drugs: replicate design. In: eds. Bio-International 2, Bioavailability, Bioequivalence and Pharmacokinetics, HH Blume, KK Midha. Medpharm, Stuttgart 1995; 123–128
   Google Scholar
• Chow S-C. Statistical considerations for replicated designs. In: eds. Bioavailability, Bioequivalence and Pharmacokinetic Studies, KK Midha, T Nagai. Academic Societies Japan, Tokyo 1996; 107–112
   Google Scholar
• Endrenyi L, Taback N, Tothfalusi L. Properties of the estimated variance component for subject-by-formulation interaction in studies of individual bioequivalence. Stat Med. 2000; 19: 2867–2878
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gould AL. A practical approach for evaluating population and individual bioequivalence. Stat Med. 2000; 19: 2721–2740
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Guilbaud O. Exact inference about the within-subject variance in 2 × 2 cross-over studies. J Amer Stat Assoc. 1993; 88: 939–946
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Guilbaud O. Exact comparisons of means and variances in 2 × 2 cross-over trials. Drug Info J. 1999; 33: 455–469
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Endrenyi L, Tothfalusi L. Truncated AUC evaluates effectively the bioequivalence of drugs with long half-lives. Int J Clin Pharmacol Ther. 1997; 35: 142–150
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gaudreault J, Potvin D, Lavigne J, Lalonde RL. Truncated area under the curve as a measure of relative extent of bioavailability: evaluation using experimental data and Monte Carlo simulations. Pharm Res. 1998; 15: 1621–1629
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Midha KK, Rawson M, Hubbard JW. Individual and average bioequivalence of high variability drugs and drug products. J Pharm Sci. 1997; 86: 1193–1197
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dragalin V, Fedorov V, Patterson S, Jones B. Kullback-Leibler divergence for evaluating bioequivalence. Stat Med. 2003; 22: 913–930
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Steiger JH. Beyond the F test: Effect size confidence intervals and tests of close fit in the analysis of variance and contrast analysis. Psychol Meth. 2004; 9: 164–182
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cumming G, Finch S. A primer on the understanding, use, and calculation of confidence intervals that are based on central and noncentral distributions. Educ Psychol Meas. 2001; 61: 532–574
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chan LK, Cheng SW, Spiring FA. New measure of process capability: Cpm. J Qual Technol. 1989; 20: 162–175
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Feinstein AR. Indexes of contrast and quantitative significance for comparisons of two groups. Stat Med. 1999; 18: 2557–2581
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cohen J. Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences. Academic Press, New York 1969
   Google Scholar
• Borenstein M. Hypothesis testing and effect size estimation in clinical trials. Ann Allergy Asthma Immunol. 1997; 78: 5–11
   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: 2885–2897
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schuirmann DJ. Average bioequivalence criterion with replicate designs. AAPS International Workshop on Individual Bioequivalence: Realities and Implementation. Montreal, Quebec Aug 30–Sep 1, 1999
   Google Scholar
• SAS statistical program package. SAS Institute, Inc, Gary, NC
   Google Scholar
• Hsuan FC, Reeve R. Assessing individual bioequivalence with high-order crossover designs: a unified procedure. Stat Med. 2003; 22: 2847–2860
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vuorinen J, Turunen J. A three-step procedure for assessing bioequivalence in the general mixed-model framework. Stat Med. 1996; 15: 2635–2655
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vuorinen J, Turunen J. A simple three-step procedure for parametric and nonparametric assessment of bioequivalence. Drug Info J. 1997; 31: 167–180
   Google Scholar
• Hauck WW, Parekh A, Lesko L, et al. Limits of 80%–125% for AUC and 70–143% for Cmax: What is the impact on bioequivalence studies?. Int J Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2001; 39: 350–355
   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 Cmax. Int J Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2003; 41: 217–225
   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: 1933–1942
   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