Metrics for the evaluation of bioequivalence of modified-release formulations

AAPS Journal

Volumn 14, Issue 4, 2012, Pages 813-819

  Endrenyi, Laszlo ^a   Tothfalusi, Laszlo ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO   (Canada)

^b SEMMELWEIS UNIVERSITY   (Hungary)

Author keywords

Bioequivalence; Metrics; Modified release; Steady state; Therapeutic equivalence

Indexed keywords

DRUG;

AREA UNDER THE CURVE; BIOEQUIVALENCE; CONCENTRATION RESPONSE; CONTROLLED RELEASE FORMULATION; DELAYED RELEASE FORMULATION; DRUG ACCUMULATION; DRUG BLOOD LEVEL; DRUG DOSAGE FORM; EXTENDED RELEASE FORMULATION; FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION; HEALTH CARE ORGANIZATION; IMMEDIATE RELEASE FORMULATION; LAG; MAXIMUM PLASMA CONCENTRATION; MEAN RESIDENCE TIME; MIDPOINT DURATION TIME; MODIFIED RELEASE FORMULATION; MULTIPLE DRUG DOSE; PEAK OCCUPANCY TIME; PHARMACOLOGICAL PARAMETERS; REVIEW; SINGLE DRUG DOSE; STEADY STATE; TIME TO MAXIMUM PLASMA CONCENTRATION;

AREA UNDER CURVE; DELAYED-ACTION PREPARATIONS; HUMANS; PHARMACEUTICAL PREPARATIONS; PHARMACOKINETICS; THERAPEUTIC EQUIVALENCY; TIME FACTORS;

EID: 84869145691     PISSN: 15507416     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1208/s12248-012-9396-8     Document Type: Review

References (57)

1. FDA. Bioavailability and bioequivalence studies for orally administered drug products-general considerations: guidance for industry. Rockville: FDA, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research; 2003.
2. Nightingale SL (FDA Associate Commissioner for Health Affairs). Therapeutic equivalence of generic drugs-letter to health practitioners. January 28, 1998. http://www.fda.gov/Drugs/DevelopmentApprovalProcess/ HowDrugsareDevelopedandApproved/ApprovalApplications/ AbbreviatedNewDrugApplicationANDA Generics/ucm073182.htm. Accessed 15 Feb 2012.
3. Kluznik JC, Walbek NH, Farnsworth MG, Melstrom K. Clinical effects of a randomized switch of patients from clozaril to generic clozapine. J Clin Psychiatry. 2001;62 Suppl 5:14-7.
4. Tothfalusi L, Speidl S, Endrenyi L. Exposure-response analysis reveals that clinically important toxicity difference can exist between bioequivalent carbamazepine tablets. Br J Clin Pharmacol. 2007;65:110-22.
5. Rosenthal J, Kong B, Jacobs L, et al. Did a switch to a generic antidepressant cause relapse? J Fam Pract. 2008;57:109-14.
6. Vial J, Cohen M, Sassiat P, Thiébaut D. Pharmaceutical quality of docetaxel generics versus originator drug product: a comparative analysis. Curr Med Res Opin. 2008;24:2019-33.
7. Health Canada. Guidance Document. Conduct and analysis of comparative bioavailability studies.Ottawa,Ontario:Health Canada, 2012. http://hc-sc.gc.ca/ dhp-mps/alt-formats/pdf/prodpharma/applicdemande/guide-ld/bio/gd-cbs-ebc-ld-eng. pdf.Accessed 18 Jun 2012.
8. EMEA. Note for guidance on modified release oral and transdermal dosage forms: section II (pharmacokinetic and clinical evaluation). London: European Agency for the Evaluation of Medicinal Products, Committee for Proprietary Medicinal Products; 1999.
9. Steinijans VW. Pharmacokinetic characteristics of controlled release products and their biostatistical analysis. In: Gundert-Remy U, Moeller H, editors. Oral controlled release products-Therapeutic and biopharmaceutic assessment. Stuttgart: Wissentschaftliche Verlagsgesellschaft; 1989. p. 99-115.
10. Steinijans VW. Pharmacokinetic characterization of controlledrelease formulations. Eur J Drug Metab Pharmacokinet. 1990;15:173-81.
11. SchulzH-U, SteinijansVW. Striving for standards in bioequivalence assessment: a review. Int J Clin Pharmacol Ther Toxicol. 1991;29:293-8.
12. Bialer M, Arcavi L, Susann S, Volosov A, Yacobi A, Moros D, et al. Existing and new criteria for bioequivalence evaluation of new controlled release (CR) products of carbamazepine. Epilepsy Res. 1998;32:371-8.
13. FDA. Background information for the FDA Meeting of the Advisory Committee for Pharmaceutical Science and Clinical Pharmacology. Topic 2: Use of partial area under the curve (AUC) for the evaluation of abbreviated new drug applications (AND As) for products with complex pharmacokinetic profiles. Center for Drug Evaluation and Research. March 18, 2010. http://www.fda.gov/downloads/ AdvisoryCommittees/Committees MeetingMaterials/Drugs/ AdvisoryCommitteeforPharmaceutical ScienceandClinicalPharmacology/UCM207955.pdf. Accessed 15 Feb 2012.
14. Lionberger RA, Raw AS, Kim SH, Zhang X, Yu LX. Use of partial AUC to demonstrate bioequivalence of zolpidem tartrate extended release formulations. Pharm Res. 2012;29:1110-20.
15. Code of Federal Regulations. 21 CFR 320.1(e) and 320.23(b). http://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfcfr/CFRsearch.cfm?CFRPart= 320. Accessed 15 Feb 2012.
16. Zha J, Tothfalusi L, Endrenyi L. Properties of metrics applied for the evaluation of bioequivalence. Drug Inf J. 1994;29:989-96.
17. Chen M-L, Lesko L, Williams RL. Measures of exposure versus measures of rate and extent of absorption. Clin Pharmacokinet. 2001;40:565-72.
18. Health Canada. Guidance for industry: conduct and analysis of bioavailability and bioequivalence studies-part A: oral dosage formulations used for systemic effects. Ottawa:Health Canada; 1992.
19. Health Canada. Guidance Document. Comparative bioavailability standards: formulations used for systemic effects. Ottawa, Ontario: Health Canada, 2012. http://hc-sc.gc.ca/dhp-mps/alt-formats/pdf/prodpharma/applic-demande/guide-ld/ bio/gd-standards-ld-normes-eng.pdf. Accessed 18 Jun 2012.
20. Tothfalusi L, Endrenyi L. Estimation of Cmax and Tmax in populations after single and multiple drug administrations. J Pharmacokinet Pharmacodyn. 2003;30:363-85.
21. Chen M-L. An alternative approach for assessment of rate of absorption in bioequivalence studies. Pharm Res. 1992;9:1380-5.
22. FDA. Guidance on Zolpidem. Food andDrugAdministration, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER) Rockville, MD. October, 2011. http://www.fda.gov/Drugs/GuidanceComplianceRegulatory Information/Guidances/ ucm175029.pdf. Accessed 15 Feb 2012.
23. FDA. Draft Guidance on methylphenidate hydrochloride. Food and Drug Administration, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER) Rockville, MD. November, 2011. http://www.fda.gov/downloads/Drugs/GuidanceComplianceRegulatory Information/Guidances/UCM281454.pdf Accessed 15 Feb 2012.
24. Endrenyi L, Fritsch S, Wei Y. Cmax/AUC is a clearer measure than Cmax for absorption rates in investigations of bioequivalence. Int J Clin Pharmacol Ther Toxicol. 1991;29:394-9.
25. Endrenyi L, Yan W. Variation of Cmax and Cmax/AUC in investigations of bioequivalence. Int J Clin Pharmacol Ther Toxicol. 1993;31:184-9.
26. Steinijans VW, Hauschke D. Statistical analysis of bioequivalence studies. Int J Clin Pharmacol Ther Toxicol. 1992;30 Suppl 1:S45-50.
27. Hauschke D, Steinijans V, Pigeot I. Bioequivalence studies in drug development. London: Wiley; 2007.
28. Khoo KC, Gibaldi M, Brazzell RK. Comparison of statistical moment parameters to Cmax and Tmax for detecting in vivo dissolution rates. J Pharm Sci. 1985;74:1340-2.
29. Pollack PT, Freeman DJ, Carruthers SG. Mean apical concentration and duration in the comparative bioavailability of slowly absorbed and eliminated drug preparations. J Pharm Sci. 1988;77:477-80.
30. Paixao P, Gouveia LF, Morais JAG. An alternative single dose parameter to avoid the need for steady-state studies on oral extendedrelease drug products. Eur J Pharm Biopharm. 2012;80:410-7.
31. Hauschke D, Steinijans VW, Diletti E. A distribution-free procedure for the statistical analysis of bioequivalence studies. Int J Clin Pharmacol Ther Toxicol. 1990;28:72-8.
32. Basson RP, Cerimele HJ, DeSante KA, Howey DC. Tmax: an unconfounded metric for rate of absorption in single dose bioequivalence studies. Pharm Res. 1996;13:324-8.
33. Jonkman JHG, Berg WC,De Vries K, De ZeeuwRA, Schoenmaker R, Grimberg N. Disposition and clinical pharmacology of theophylline after administration of a new sustained release tablet. Eur J Clin Pharmacol. 1981;21:39-44.
34. Meier J, Nuesch E, Schmidt R. Pharmacokinetic criteria for the evaluation of retard formulations.Eur JClin Pharmacol. 1974;7:429-32.
35. Steinijans VW, Sauter R, Diletti E. Shape analysis in single-And multiple-dose studies of modified-release products. In: Midha KK, Blume HH, editors. BioInternational 2: bioavailability, bioequivalence and pharmacokinetic studies. Stuttgart: Medpharm; 1995. p. 193-206.
36. Boxenbaum H. Pharmacokinetic determinants in the design and evaluation of sustained-release dosage forms. PharmRes. 1984;2:82-8.
37. Skelly JP. Guidance for conducting studies on theophylline controlled release products. Rockville: Food and Drug Administration, Division of Biopharmaceutics (0928X-4/84); 1984.
38. Steinijans VW, Trautmann H, Johnson E, Beier W. Theophylline steady-state pharmacokinetics: recent concepts and their application in chronotherapy of reactive airway diseases. Chronobiol Int. 1987;4:331-47.
39. Jackson AJ. Prediction of steady-state bioequivalence relationships using single dose data I-linear kinetics. Biopharm Drug Dispos. 1987;8:483-96.
40. 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;11:1330-6.
41. 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.
42. Levy G. The clay feet of bioequivalence. J Pharm Pharmacol. 1995;47:975-7.
43. Chen M-L, Shah VP, Ganes D, Midha KK, Caro J, Nambiar P, et al. Challenges and opportunities in establishing scientific and regulatory standards for assuring therapeutic equivalence of modified-release products: workshop summary report. Eur J Pharm Sci. 2010;40:148-53.
44. Hougardy JM, de Jonge H, Kuypers D, Abramovicz D. The once-daily formulation of tacrolimus: a step forward in kidney transplantation? Transplantation. 2012;93:241-3.
45. Garcia-Arieta A, Morales-Alcelay S, Herranz M, de la Torre JM, Blazquez A, Suarez L, et al. Investigation on the need of multiple dose bioequivalence studies for prolonged-release generic products. Int J Pharm. 2012;423:321-5.
46. El-Tahtawy AA, Jackson AJ, Ludden TM. Evaluation of bioequivalence of highly variable drugs using Monte Carlo simulations. I. Estimation of rate of absorption for single and multiple dose trials using Cmax. Pharm Res. 1995;12:1635-41.
47. El-Tahtawy AA, Tozer TN, Harrison F, Lesko L, Williams R. 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.
48. Health Canada. Guidance for industry: conduct and analysis of bioavailability and bioequivalence studies-part B: oral modified release formulations. Ottawa: Health Canada; 1996.
49. Chen M-L, Davit B, Lionberger R, Wahba Z, Ahn H-Y, Yu LX. Using partial area for the evaluation of bioavailability and bioequivalence. Pharm Res. 2011;28:1939-47.
50. Endrenyi L, Tothfalusi L. Truncated AUC evaluates effectively the bioequivalence of drugs with long half-lives. Int J Clin Pharmacol Ther. 1997;35:142-50. 51.
51. 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;15:1621-9.
52. Macheras P, Symillides M, Reppas C. The cutoff time point of the partial area method for assessment of rate absorption in bioequivalence studies. Pharm Res. 1994;11:831-4.
53. Endrenyi L, Csizmadia F, Tothfalusi L, Balch AH, Chen M-L. The duration of measuring partial AUCs for the assessment of bioequivalence. Pharm Res. 1998;15:399-404.
54. Gonzalez MA, Pentikis HS, Anderl N, Benedict MF, DeCory HH, Hirshey Dirksen SJ, et al. Methylphenidate bioavailability from two extended release formulations. Int J Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2002;40:175-84.
55. Anschütz M, Wonnemann M, Schug B, Toal C, Donath F, Pontius A, et al. Differences in bioavailability between 60 mg of nifedipine osmotic push-pull systems after fasting and fed administrations. Int J Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2010;48:158-70.
56. Midha KK, Rawson MJ, McKay G, Hubbard JW. Exposure measures applied to the bioequivalence of two sustained release formulations of bupropion. Int J Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2005;43:244-54.
57. Endrenyi L, Tothfalusi L. Do regulatory bioequivalence requirements adequately reflect the therapeutic equivalence of modified-release drug products? J Pharm Pharm Sci. 2010;13:107-13.