Bioequivalence: A review of study design and statistical analysis for orally administered products

International Journal of Pharmaceutical Medicine

Volumn 20, Issue 4, 2006, Pages 243-250

  Patterson, Scott D ^a   Jones, Byron ^b  

^a GLAXOSMITHKLINE   (United States)

^b PFIZER GLOBAL RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

BIOEQUIVALENCE; DRUG DESIGN; DRUG FORMULATION; DRUG INDUSTRY; DRUG LEGISLATION; DRUG RESEARCH; EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN; GOOD MANUFACTURING PRACTICE; PRACTICE GUIDELINE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE; REVIEW; STATISTICAL ANALYSIS;

EID: 33750947541     PISSN: 13649027     EISSN: 13649027     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.2165/00124363-200620040-00004     Document Type: Review

References (58)

1. Benet LZ. Understanding bioequivalence testing. Transplant Proc 1999; 31 Suppl. A: 7S-9S
2. Rheinstein PH. Therapeutic inequivalence. Drug Saf 1990; 5 Suppl. 1: 114-9
3. Ansbacher R. Interchangeability of low dose oral contraceptives: are current bioequivalent testing measures adequate to ensure therapeutic equivalency? Contraception 1991; 43 (2): 139-47
4. Atkinson A, Daniels C, Dedrick R, Grudzinskas C, Markey S, editors. Principles of clinical pharmacology. San Diego (CA): Academic Press, 2001
5. Rowland M, Tozer TN. Clinical pharmacokinetics: concepts and applications. Philadelphia (PA): Lea and Febiger, 1980
6. Patterson S, Jones B. Bioequivalence and statistics in clinical pharmacology. London: Chapman and Hall/CRC, 2005
7. Wellek S. Testing statistical hypotheses of equivalence. London: Chapman and Hall, CRC Press, 2003
8. Jones B, Kenward MG. Design and analysis of cross-over trials. 2nd ed. London: Chapman and Hall, 2003
9. Senn S. Cross-over trials in clinical research. 2nd ed. New York: John Wiley and Sons, 2002
10. Chow SC, Liu J. Design and analysis of bioavailability and bioequivalence studies. 2nd ed. New York: Marcel Dekker, 2000
11. Guidance for industry: bioavailability and bioequivalence studies for orally administered drug products -general considerations [online]. Available from URL: http://www.fda.gov/cder/guidance/5356fnl.pdf [Accessed 2006 Jul 26]
12. Sheiner LB, Steimer J-L. Pharmacokinetic-pharmacodynamic modeling in drug development. Annu Rev Pharmacol Toxicol 2000; 40: 67-95
13. Anderson S, Hauck WW. The transitivity of bioequivalence testing: potential for drift. Int J Clin Pharmacol Ther 1996; 34: 369-74
14. Schuirmann DJ. On hypothesis testing to determine if the mean of a normal distribution is contained in a known interval. Biometrics 1981; 37: 617
15. 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
16. Schuirmann DJ. Design of bioavailability and bioequivalence studies. Drug Inf J 1990; 24: 315-23
17. FDA guidance. Statistical procedures for bioequivalence studies using a standard two treatment cross-over design. Bethesda (MD): US Department of Health and Human Services, Food and Drug Administration, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER), 1992
18. US FDA. Preliminary draft guidance on in vivo bioequivalence studies based on population and individual bioequivalence approaches. Issued 1997 Dec [online]. Available from URL: http://www.fda.gov/cder/bioequivdata/ [Accessed 2006 Jul 26]
19. US FDA. Draft guidance on bioavailability and bioequivalence studies for orally administered drug products: general considerations. Bethesda (MD): US Food and Drug Administration, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, 1999
20. US FDA. Draft guidance for industry on average, population, and individual approaches to establishing bioequivalence. Issued 1999 [online]. Available from URL: http://www.fda.gov/OHRMS/DOCKETS/98fr/090899c.txt [Accessed 2006 Jul 26]
21. US FDA. Guidance on bioavailability and bioequivalence studies for orally administered drug products: general considerations. Bethesda (MD): US Food and Drug Administration, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, 2000
22. Guidance for industry: statistical approaches to establishing bioequivalence. Issued 2001 Jan [online]. Available from URL: http://www.fda.gov/Cder/guidance/3616fnl.pdf [Accessed 2006 Jul 26]
23. Barrett JS, Batra V, Chow A, et al. PhRMA perspective on population and individual bioequivalence and update to the PhRMA perspective on population and individual bioequivalence. J Clin Pharmacol 2000; 40: 561-72
24. Hauck WW, Hyslop T, Anderson S, et al. Statistical and regulatory considerations for multiple measures in bioequivalence testing. Clin Res Regul Aff 1995; 12: 249-65
25. FDA Guidance. Waiver of in vivo bioavailability and bioequivalence studies for immediate-release solid oral dosage forms based on a biopharmaceutics classification system. Issued 2000 Aug [online]. Available from URL: http://www.fda.gov/CDER/GUIDANCE/3618fnl.htm [Accessed 2006 Jul 26]
26. EMEA, Committee for Proprietary Medicinal Products. Notes for guidance on the investigation of bioavailability and bioequivalence. Adopted 2001 Jul [online]. Available from URL: http://www.emea.eu.int/pdfs/human/ewp/140198en.pdf [Accessed 2006 Jul 26]
27. Australia Therapeutic Goods Administration. Australian regulatory guidelines for prescription medicines. Appendix 15: biopharmaceutical studies [online]. Available from URL: http://www.tga.gov.au/pmeds/argpm.pdf [Accessed 2006 Jul 26]
28. China State Drug Administration. Drug registration regulation. Beijing: China State Drug Administration, 2003
29. Health Canada. Guidance for industry: conduct and analysis of bioequivalence studies - part A: oral dosage formulations used for systemic effects. Issued 1992 [online]. Available from URL: http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/dhp- mps/alt_formats/hpfb-dgpsa/pdf/prodpharma/bio-a_e.pdf [Accessed 2006 Jul 26]
30. Health Canada. Guidance for industry: conduct and analysis of bioequivalence studies - part B: oral modified release formulations. Issued 1996 [online]. Available from URL: http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/dhp-mps/alt_formats/hpfb- dgpsa/pdf/prodpharma/bio-b_e.pdf [Accessed 2006 Jul 26]
31. Benet LZ, Goyan JE. Bioequivalence and narrow therapeutic index drugs. Pharmacotherapy 1995; 15: 433-40
32. Japanese Ministry of Health and Welfare, National Institute of Health Sciences. Guideline for bioequivalence studies of generic products. Issued 1997 Dec [online]. Available from URL: http://www.nihs.go.jp/drug/be-guide(e)/ Generic/be97E.pdf [Accessed 2006 Jul 26]
33. Aoyagi N. Japanese guidance on bioavailability and bioequivalence. Eur J Drug Metab Pharmacokinet 2000; 25 (1): 28-31
34. Patterson S, Zariffa N, Howland K, et al. Non-traditional study designs to demonstrate average bioequivalence for highly variable drug products. Eur J Clin Pharmacol 2001; 57: 663-70
35. Hauck WW, Preston PE, Bois FY. A group sequential approach to cross-over trials for average bioequivalence. J Biopharm Stat 1997; 7: 87-96
36. Gould AL. Group sequential extensions of a standard bioequivalence testing procedure. J Pharmacokinet Biopharm 1995; 23: 57-86
37. Guidance for industry: E9 statistical principles for clinical trials. Issued 1998 Sep [online]. Available from URL: http://www.fda.gov/CDER/guidance/ ICH_E9-fnl.PDF [Accessed 2006 Jul 26]
38. Jennison C, Turnbull BW. Group Sequential methods with applications to clinical trials. New York: Chapman and Hall, 2000
39. Jennison C, Turnbull BW. Meta-analyses and adaptive group sequential designs in the clinical development process. J Biopharm Stat 2005; 15: 537-58
40. Wetherill G, Glazebrook K. Sequential methods in statistics. New York: Chapman and Hall, 1986
41. Whitehead J. Sequential designs for equivalence studies. Stat Med 1996; 15: 2703-15
42. USFDA. Guidance for in-vivo bioequivalence study for slow release potassium-chloride tablets and capsules. Bethesda (MD): US Department of Health and Human Services, Food and Drug Administration, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER), 1987
43. US FDA. Guidance for the in-vitro portion of bioequivalence requirements for metaproterenol sulfate and albuterol inhalation aerosols (metered dose inhalers). Bethesda (MD): US Department of Health and Human Services, Food and Drug Administration, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER), 1994
44. US FDA. Interim guidance: cholestyramine powder in-vitro bioequivalence. Bethesda (MD): US Department of Health and Human Services, Food and Drug Administration, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER), 1993
45. US FDA guidance. Phenytoin sodium capsules, tablets, and suspension in vivo bioequivalence and in-vitro dissolution testing. Bethesda (MD): US Department of Health and Human Services, Food and Drug Administration, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER), 1994
46. Guidance. Topical dermatologic corticosteroids: in vivo bioequivalence. Issued 1995 Jun [online]. Available from URL: http://www.fda.gov/cder/guidance/ old098fn.pdf [Accessed 2006 Jul 26]
47. Guidance for industry. Clozapine tablets: in vivo bioequivalence and in vitro dissolution testing [online]. Available from URL: http://www.fda.gov/cder/ guidance/6077fnl.pdf [Accessed 2006 Jul 26]
48. Guidance for industry. Levothyroxine sodium tablets: in vivo pharmacokinetic and bioavailability studies and in vitro dissolution testing. Issued 2000 Dec [online]. Available from URL: http://www.fda.gov/cder/guidance/ 3645fnl.pdf [Accessed 2006 Jul 26]
49. Statistical Information from the June 1999 draft guidance and statistical information for in vitro bioequivalence data posted on August 18, 1999 [online]. Available from URL: http://www.fda.gov/cder/guidance/5383stats.pdf [Accessed 2006 Jul 26]
50. Draft guidance for industry. Bioavailability and bioequivalence studies for nasal aerosols and nasal sprays for local action. Issued 2003 Apr [online]. Available from URL: http://www.fda.gov/cder/guidance/5383DFT.doc [Accessed 2006 Jul 26]
51. Bhattycharyya L, Dabbah R, Hauck W, et al. Equivalence studies for complex active ingredients and dosage forms. AAPS J 2005; 7: E786-812
52. Diletti E, Hauschke D, Steinijans VW. Sample size determination for bioequivalence assessment by means of confidence intervals. Int J Clin Pharmacol Ther Toxicol 1991; 29: 1-8
53. Taber D, Baillie M, Ashcraft E, et al. Does bioequivalence between modified cyclosporine formulations translate into equal outcomes? Transplantation 2005; 80: 1633-5
54. Trottet L, Owen H, Holme P, et al. Are all aciclovir cream formulations bioequivalent? Int J Pharm 2005; 304: 63-71
55. Patterson S, Jones B. Simulation assessments of statistical aspects of bioequivalence in the pharmaceutical industry. Pharm Stat 2004; 3: 13-23
56. Bolton S. Bioequivalence studies for levothyroxine. AAPS J 2005; 7: E47-53
57. ICH E14 Step 2: the clinical evaluation of QT/QTc interval prolongation and proarrhythmic potential for non-antiarrhythmic drugs. Issued 2004 Dec [online]. Available from URL: http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/DOCKETS/04d0377/ 04D-0377-EC7-Attach-1.pdf [Accessed 2006 Jul 26]
58. Temple R. Policy developments in regulatory approval. Stat Med 2002; 21: 2939-48