E Ramirez1, P Guerra, O Laosa, B Duque, B Tabares, S H Lei, A J Carcas, J Frias. 1. Clinical Pharmacology Department, La Paz University Hospital, School of Medicine, Autonomous University of Madrid, Arzobispo Morcillo s/n, Madrid, Spain. elena.ramirez@uam.es
Abstract
PURPOSE: Fulfilling bioequivalence criteria with highly variable drugs is difficult. The aim of this study was to compare the importance of sample size, intrasubject variability, and the point estimate of test and reference formulations with regard to meeting bioequivalence (BE) criteria [maximum observed plasma concentration (C(max)) and area under the concentration-time curve (AUC)]. METHODS: We compared 137 pairs of data from BE studies with a conventional number of subjects, approximately 31-32 volunteers, developed in the last 10 years. RESULTS: The third part of the studies failed to demonstrate BE, in part due to an unacceptable difference between the mean ratios (T/R) (18) but also due to high variability with small differences between formulations (17). Increasing the number of subjects is hard to justify, and expanding the confidence interval (CI) was insufficient for the most highly variable drugs. CONCLUSIONS: Therefore, for low-variable drugs, the difference between formulations was the cornerstone of the fulfillment of BE criteria, but for highly variable drugs, the intrasubject coefficient of variability (ICV) was decisive. Our proposal is that for highly variable drugs that fall outside BE 90% CI limits could result in BE in the absence of formulation effect and maximal differences between formulations below 20%.
PURPOSE: Fulfilling bioequivalence criteria with highly variable drugs is difficult. The aim of this study was to compare the importance of sample size, intrasubject variability, and the point estimate of test and reference formulations with regard to meeting bioequivalence (BE) criteria [maximum observed plasma concentration (C(max)) and area under the concentration-time curve (AUC)]. METHODS: We compared 137 pairs of data from BE studies with a conventional number of subjects, approximately 31-32 volunteers, developed in the last 10 years. RESULTS: The third part of the studies failed to demonstrate BE, in part due to an unacceptable difference between the mean ratios (T/R) (18) but also due to high variability with small differences between formulations (17). Increasing the number of subjects is hard to justify, and expanding the confidence interval (CI) was insufficient for the most highly variable drugs. CONCLUSIONS: Therefore, for low-variable drugs, the difference between formulations was the cornerstone of the fulfillment of BE criteria, but for highly variable drugs, the intrasubject coefficient of variability (ICV) was decisive. Our proposal is that for highly variable drugs that fall outside BE 90% CI limits could result in BE in the absence of formulation effect and maximal differences between formulations below 20%.
Authors: Elena Ramirez; Olga Laosa; Pedro Guerra; Blanca Duque; Beatriz Mosquera; Alberto M Borobia; Suhua H Lei; Antonio J Carcas; Jesus Frias Journal: Br J Clin Pharmacol Date: 2010-11 Impact factor: 4.335