Evaluation of truncated areas in the assessment of bioequivalence of immediate release formulations of drugs with long half-lives and of Cmax with different dissolution rates

Pharmaceutical Research

Volumn 16, Issue 6, 1999, Pages 939-943

  Sathe, Pradeep ^a   Venitz, Jurgen ^b   Lesko, Lawrence ^a  

^a CENTER FOR DRUG EVALUATION AND RESEARCH   (United States)

^b VIRGINIA COMMONWEALTH UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

In vitro dissolution rate; Long half life; Monte Carlo simulations; Truncated AUC

Indexed keywords

ETHOSUXIMIDE; NORTRIPTYLINE; PHENYLBUTAZONE; PIROXICAM; TAMOXIFEN;

AREA UNDER THE CURVE; ARTICLE; BIOEQUIVALENCE; CLINICAL TRIAL; COMPARTMENT MODEL; CONTROLLED CLINICAL TRIAL; CONTROLLED STUDY; CROSSOVER PROCEDURE; DRUG ABSORPTION; DRUG DISPOSITION; DRUG HALF LIFE; DRUG SOLUBILITY; HUMAN; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL; SYSTEM ANALYSIS;

AREA UNDER CURVE; CHEMISTRY, PHARMACEUTICAL; COMPUTER SIMULATION; EVALUATION STUDIES; HALF-LIFE; MONTE CARLO METHOD; PHARMACOKINETICS; SOLUBILITY; THERAPEUTIC EQUIVALENCY;

EID: 0033020950     PISSN: 07248741     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1023/A:1018898624643     Document Type: Article

References (24)

1. 1. B. Alexanderson. Bioavailability of drugs with long elimination half-lives. Eur J. Clin. Pharmacol. 4:82-91 (1972).
2. 2. L. Endrenyi et al. Truncated AUC evaluates effectively the bioequivalence of drugs with long half-lives. Int. J. Clin. Pharmacol. 35:142-150 (1997).
3. 3. H. M. Abdou. Dissolution. Bioavailability and Bioequivalence, Mack Publishers, Easton, 1989.
4. 4. L. Endrenyi, L. Tothfalusi, R. L. Lalonde, J. and Gaudreault. Partial AUC is effective for assessing the bioequivalence of drugs with long halt-lives. Clin. Pharmacol. Ther. 59:152 (1996).
5. 0-72 in bioequivalence assesssment of drugs with long half-life. Pharm. Res. 13:S477 (1996).
6. 6. M. N. Martinez and A. J. Jackson. Suitability of various non-infinity area under the plasma concentration time curve (AUC) estimates for use in bioequivalence determinations: relationship to AUC from zero to time infinity. Pharm. Res. 8:512-517 (1991).
7. 7. I. J. McGilveray, S. V. Dighe, I. W. French, K. K. Midha, and J. P. Skelly (eds.). Bio-International 1989 Proceedings, Issues in the evaluation of bioavailability data, Toronto, 1989, pp. 152-155.
8. th Edition, 1650-1735.
9. 9. United States Pharmacopia 23, pages 642, 1107, 1210, 1235, 1478.
10. 10. SAS/STAT User's Guide, Release 6.03, SAS Institute, Cary, North Carolina, 1988, 705-709.
11. st edition, 36-39
12. R Inc., Salt Lake City, Utah, Version 1, 1994.
13. 13. H. Akaike. IEEE Trans. Automat. Contr. 19:716-723 (1974).
14. R by Palisade Inc., Newfield, New-York, version 2.01, 1992.
15. 15. SAS/STAT User's Guide, Release 6.03, SAS Institute, Cary, North Carolina, 1988, 549-640.
16. 16. D. J. Schuirman. A comparison of the two one sided tests procedure and the power approach for assessing the equivalence of average bioavailability. J. Pharmacokin. Biopharm. 15:657-680 (1987).
17. 17. F. Y. Bois et al. Bioequivalence: Performance of several measures of extent of absorption. Pharm. Res. 11:715-722 (1994).
18. 18. F. Y. Bois et al. Bioequivalence: Performance of several measures of rate of absorption. Pharm. Res. 11:966-974 (1994).
19. 19. P. Macheras, M. Symillides, and C. Reppas. The cutoff time point of the partial area method for assessment of absorption in bioequivalence studies, Pharm. Res. 11:831-834 (1994).
20. 20. E. G. Lovering, I. J. McGilveray, I. McMillan, and W. J. Tostowaryk. Comparative bioavailabilities from truncated blood level curves. J. Pharm. Sci. 64(9):1521-1524 (1975).
21. 21. K. K. Midha, J. W. Hubbard, M. Rawson, and L. Gayalas. The application of partial areas in assessment of rate and extent of absorption in bioequivalence studies of conventional release products: experimental evidence. Eur. J. Pharm. Sci. 2:351-363 (1994).
22. 22. A. J. Romero et al. Use and limitations of the truncated area under the curve in bioequivalence testing. Clin. Res. Pract. and Drug Reg. Affairs. 8(2):123-151 (1990).
23. 23. L. Endrenyi and L. Tothfalusi. Secondary metrics for the assessment of bioequivalence. J. Pharm. Sci. 86(3):401-402(1997)
24. 24. T. N. Tozer et al. Absorption rate vs. exposure: which is more useful for bioequivalence testing? Pharm Res. 13(3):453-456 (1996).