Novel methods to assess bioequivalence

Expert Opinion on Drug Metabolism and Toxicology

Volumn 7, Issue 1, 2011, Pages 79-88

  Karalis, Vangelis ^a   Symillides, Mira ^a   MacHeras, Panos ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF ATHENS   (Greece)

Author keywords

Bioequivalence; Biosimilars; Biowaivers; Highly variable drugs; Novel bioequivalence methods; Scaled bioequivalence limits

Indexed keywords

DRUG METABOLITE;

BIOEQUIVALENCE; DRUG CLASSIFICATION; DRUG DESIGN; DRUG USE; EUROPE; FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION; HUMAN; MULTIPLE DRUG DOSE; NORTH AMERICA; REVIEW; SINGLE DRUG DOSE;

BIOMEDICAL RESEARCH; CLINICAL TRIALS AS TOPIC; CROSS-OVER STUDIES; DOSAGE FORMS; EUROPE; HUMANS; MODELS, THEORETICAL; PHARMACEUTICAL PREPARATIONS; THERAPEUTIC EQUIVALENCY; UNITED STATES;

EID: 78650491486     PISSN: 17425255     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1517/17425255.2011.539202     Document Type: Review

References (75)

1. Gibaldi M. Biopharmaceutics and clinical pharmacokinetics 4th edition. Lea and Lea Febiger Philadelphia; 1991
2. 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
3. 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
4. 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
5. Levy G. Comparison of dissolution and absorption rates of different commercial aspirin tablets. J Pharm Sci 1961;50:388-92
6. Levy G. Effect of particle size on dissolution and gastrointestinal absorption rates of pharmaceuticals. Am J Pharm Sci 1963;135:78-92
7. 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
8. Federal Register 1969;34:2673
9. Federal Register 1970;35:6574
10. Federal Register 1977;42:1642
11. European Medicines Agency (EMA), Evaluation of Medicines for Human Use, CPMP. Note for Guidance on the Investigation of Bioavailability and Bioequivalence, London, 2001
12. European Medicines Agency (EMA), Evaluation of Medicines for Human Use, CHMP. Guideline on the investigation of Bioequivalence, London, 2010
13. 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
14. Food and Drug Administration. Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER), Statistical Approaches to Establishing Bioequivalence, Rockville, MD, 2001
15. 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
16. Midha K, Rawson M, Hubbard J. Bioequivalence: switchability and scaling. Eur J Pharm Sci 1998;6:87-91
17. McGilveray I, Midha K, Skelly J, et al. Consensus report from "Bio-International '89": issues in the evaluation of bioavailability data. J Pharm Sci 1990;79:945-6
18. Blume H, Midha K. Bio-International '92, Conference on Bioavailability, Bioequivalence and Pharmacokinetic Studies. J Pharm Sci 1993;82:1186-9
19. Blume H, Elze M, Potthast H, et al. 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
20. 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
21. 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
22. Zha J, Tothfalusi L, Endrenyi L. Properties of metrics applied for the evaluation of bioequivalence. Drug Inf J 1995;29:989-96
23. Jackson A. Prediction of steady-state bioequivalence relationships using single dose data I-linear kinetics. Biopharm Drug Dispos 1987;8:483-96
24. Shah V, Yacobi A, Barr W, et al. Evaluation of orally administered highly variable drugs and drug formulations. Pharm Res 1996;13:1590-4
25. Anderson S, Hauck W. Consideration of individual bioequivalence. J Pharmacokinet Biopharm 1990;18:259-73
26. Schall R, Luus H. On population and individual bioequivalence. Stat Med 1993;12:1109-24
27. 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
28. Midha K, Rawson M, Hubbard J. Individual and average bioequivalence of highly variable drugs and drug products. J Pharm Sci 1997;86:1193-7
29. Endrenyi L, Amidon G, Midha K, et al. Individual bioequivalence: attractive in principle, difficult in practice. Pharm Res 1998;15:1321-5
30. Midha K, Hubbard J, McKay G, et al. The role of metabolites in a bioequivalence study II: amoxapine, 7-hydroxyamoxapine, and 8-hydroxyamoxapine. Int J Clin Pharmacol Ther 1999;37:428-38
31. Schall R, Williams R. Towards a practical strategy for assessing individual bioequivalence. J Pharmacokin Biopharm 1996;24:133-49
32. 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
33. Hauck W, Parekh A, Lesko L, et al. 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
34. 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
35. Boddy A, Snikeris F, Kringle R, et al. An approach for widening the bioequivalence acceptance limits in the case of highly variable drugs. Pharm Res 1995;12:1865-8
36. Tothfalusi L, Endrenyi L. Limits for the scaled average bioequivalence of highly variable drugs and drug products. Pharm Res 2003;20:382-9
37. 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
38. Tothfalusi L, Endrenyi L, Midha K, et al. Evaluation of the bioequivalence of highly-variable drugs and drug products. Pharm Res 2001;18:728-33
39. Hyslop T, Hsuan F, Holder DJ. A small sample confidence interval approach to assess individual bioequivalence. Stat Med 2000;19:2885-97
40. Karalis V, Symillides M, Macheras P. Novel scaled average bioequivalence limits based on GMR and variability considerations. Pharm Res 2004;21:1933-42
41. Kytariolos J, Karalis V, Macheras P, et al. Novel scaled bioequivalence limits with leveling-off properties based on variability considerations. Pharm Res 2006;23:2657-64
42. Haidar S, Davit B, Chen ML, et al. Bioequivalence approaches for highly variable drugs and drug products. Pharm Res 2008;25:237-41
43. 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
44. 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
45. 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
46. 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
47. Moore J, Flanner H. Mathematical comparison of curves with an emphasis on in vitro dissolution profiles. Pharm Tech 1996;20:64-74
48. 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
49. Benet L. Predicting drug disposition via application of a biopharmaceutics drug disposition classification system. Basic Clin Pharmacol Toxicol 2010;106:162-7
50. 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
51. 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
52. 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
53. Jackson A, Robbie G, Marroum P. Metabolites and bioequivalence: past and present. Clin Pharmacokinet 2004;43:655-72
54. Midha K, Rawson M, Hubbard J. The role of metabolites in bioequivalence. Pharm Res 2004;21:1331-44
55. Midha K, Shah V, Singh G, Patnaik R. Conference report: Bio-International 2005. J Pharm Sci 2007;96:747-54
56. 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
57. Midha K, Hubbard J, McKay G, et al. 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
58. Chen ML, Jackson A. The role of metabolites in bioequivalency assessment. I. Linear pharmacokinetics without first-pass effect. Pharm Res 1991;8:25-32
59. 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
60. 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
61. 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
62. 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
63. 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
64. 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
65. Karalis V, Macheras P. Examining the role of metabolites in bioequivalence assessment. J Pharm Pharmaceut Sci 2010;13:198-217
66. European Medicines Agency (EMA), Evaluation of Medicines for Human Use, CHMP. Guideline on immunogenicity assessment of biotechnology-derived therapeutic proteins. London, 2007
67. 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
68. European Medicines Agency (EMA), Evaluation of Medicines for Human Use, CHMP. Guidance on similar medicinal products containing recombinant erythropoietins. London, 2006
69. European Medicines Agency (EMA), Evaluation of Medicines for Human Use, CHMP. Guidance on similar medicinal products containing recombinant human soluble insulin. London, 2006
70. 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
71. 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
72. 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
73. Bialer M, Midha KK. Generic products of antiepileptic drugs: a perspective on bioequivalence and interchangeability. Epilepsia 2010;51:941-50
74. 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
75. Polli J, Abrahamsson B, Yu L, et al. Summary workshop report: bioequivalence, biopharmaceutics classification system, and beyond. AAPS J 2008;10:373-9