Literature DB >> 20041877

Variability and impact on design of bioequivalence studies.

Achiel Van Peer1.   

Abstract

In 2008, the European Agency for the Evaluation of Medicinal Products released a draft guidance on the investigation of bioequivalence for immediate release dosage forms with systemic action to replace the former guidance of a decade ago. Revisions of the regulatory guidance are based upon many questions over the past years and sometimes continuing scientific discussions on the use of the most suitable statistical analysis methods and study designs, particularly for drugs and drug products with high within-subject variability. Although high within-subject variability is usually associated with a coefficient of variation of 30% or more, new approaches are available in the literature to allow a gradual increase and a levelling off of the bioequivalence limits to some maximum wider values (e.g. 75-133%), dependent on the increase in the within-subject variability. The two-way, cross-over single dose study measuring parent drug is still the design of first choice. A partial replicate design with repeating the reference product and scaling the bioequivalence for the reference variability are proposed for drugs with high within-subject variability. In case of high variability, more regulatory authorities may accept a two-stage or group-sequential bioequivalence design using appropriately adjusted statistical analysis. This review also considers the mechanisms why drugs and drug products may exhibit large variability. The physiological complexity of the gastrointestinal tract and the interaction with the physicochemical properties of drug substances may contribute to the variation in plasma drug concentration-time profiles of drugs and drug products and to variability between and within subjects. A review of submitted bioequivalence studies at the Food and Drug Administration's Office of Generic Drugs over the period 2003-2005 indicated that extensive pre-systemic metabolism of the drug substance was the most important explanation for consistently high variability drugs, rather than a formulation factor. These scientific efforts are expected to further lead to revisions of earlier regulatory guidance in other regions as is the current situation in Europe.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2009        PMID: 20041877     DOI: 10.1111/j.1742-7843.2009.00485.x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Basic Clin Pharmacol Toxicol        ISSN: 1742-7835            Impact factor:   4.080


  14 in total

1.  Bioequivalence of highly variable drugs: a comparison of the newly proposed regulatory approaches by FDA and EMA.

Authors:  Vangelis Karalis; Mira Symillides; Panos Macheras
Journal:  Pharm Res       Date:  2011-12-28       Impact factor: 4.200

2.  How long will treatment guidelines for TB continue to overlook variability in drug exposure?

Authors:  Morris Muliaditan; Oscar Della Pasqua
Journal:  J Antimicrob Chemother       Date:  2019-11-01       Impact factor: 5.790

Review 3.  Two-stage designs in bioequivalence trials.

Authors:  Helmut Schütz
Journal:  Eur J Clin Pharmacol       Date:  2015-01-22       Impact factor: 2.953

4.  A Bioequivalence Approach for Generic Narrow Therapeutic Index Drugs: Evaluation of the Reference-Scaled Approach and Variability Comparison Criterion.

Authors:  Wenlei Jiang; Fairouz Makhlouf; Donald J Schuirmann; Xinyuan Zhang; Nan Zheng; Dale Conner; Lawrence X Yu; Robert Lionberger
Journal:  AAPS J       Date:  2015-04-04       Impact factor: 4.009

5.  In Silico Evaluation of the Potential Impact of Bioanalytical Bias Difference between Two Therapeutic Protein Formulations for Pharmacokinetic Assessment in a Biocomparability Study.

Authors:  Theingi M Thway; Chris Macaraeg; Michael Eschenberg; Mark Ma
Journal:  AAPS J       Date:  2015-03-05       Impact factor: 4.009

6.  Multivariate Assessment for Bioequivalence Based on the Correlation of Random Effect.

Authors:  Hyungmi An; Dongseong Shin
Journal:  Drug Des Devel Ther       Date:  2021-08-23       Impact factor: 4.162

7.  Method of variability optimization in pharmacokinetic data analysis.

Authors:  Tomasz Grabowski; Jerzy Jan Jaroszewski; Walerian Piotrowski; Małgorzta Sasinowska-Motyl
Journal:  Eur J Drug Metab Pharmacokinet       Date:  2013-06-19       Impact factor: 2.441

8.  10th Anniversary of a Two-Stage Design in Bioequivalence. Why Has it Still Not Been Implemented?

Authors:  Michał Kaza; Alexander Sokolovskyi; Piotr J Rudzki
Journal:  Pharm Res       Date:  2020-07-13       Impact factor: 4.200

9.  Optimizing Pharmacology Studies in Pregnant and Lactating Women Using Lessons From HIV: A Consensus Statement.

Authors:  Ahizechukwu C Eke; Adeniyi Olagunju; Jeremiah Momper; Martina Penazzato; Elaine J Abrams; Brookie M Best; Edmund V Capparelli; Adrie Bekker; Yodit Belew; Jennifer J Kiser; Kimberly Struble; Graham Taylor; Catriona Waitt; Mark Mirochnick; Tim R Cressey; Angela Colbers
Journal:  Clin Pharmacol Ther       Date:  2020-10-15       Impact factor: 6.875

10.  Bioequivalence Study of 100-mg Cilostazol Tablets in Healthy Thai Adult Volunteers.

Authors:  Somruedee Chatsiricharoenkul; Yanisorn Nanchaipruek; Patcharaporn Manopinives; Suparat Atakulreka; Suvimol Niyomnaitham
Journal:  Curr Ther Res Clin Exp       Date:  2019-07-15
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.