Literature DB >> 2380920

Consideration of individual bioequivalence.

S Anderson1, W W Hauck.   

Abstract

Current procedures for assessing the bioequivalence of two formulations are based on the concept of average bioequivalence. That is, they assess whether the average responses between individuals on the two formulations are similar. Average bioequivalence, however, is not sufficient to guarantee that an individual patient could be expected to respond similarly to the two formulations. To have reasonable assurance that an individual patient could be switched from a therapeutically successful formulation to a different formulation (e.g., a generic substitute) requires a different notion of bioequivalence. We propose a simple, valid statistical procedure for assessing individual bioequivalence. The decision rule, TIER (Test of Individual Equivalence Ratios), requires the specification of the minimum proportion of subjects in the applicable population for which the two formulations being tested must be bioequivalent (a regulatory decision). The TIER rule is summarized in terms of the minimum number of subjects with bioavailability ratios falling within the specified equivalence interval necessary to be able to claim bioequivalence for given sample size and Type I (alpha) error. We recommend that the corresponding lower bounds (one-sided confidence intervals) for the proportion of bioequivalent subjects be calculated. TIER is partly motivated by the U.S. FDA's 75/75 Rule (at least 75% of the individual subject bioavailability ratios must be within 75-125%). TIER retains the sensible idea of considering the individual ratios but, unlike the 75/75 rule, is a statistically valid procedure.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1990        PMID: 2380920     DOI: 10.1007/bf01062202

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Pharmacokinet Biopharm        ISSN: 0090-466X


  5 in total

1.  Statistical aspects of comparative bioavailability trials.

Authors:  W J Westlake
Journal:  Biometrics       Date:  1979-03       Impact factor: 2.571

2.  A new statistical procedure for testing equivalence in two-group comparative bioavailability trials.

Authors:  W W Hauck; S Anderson
Journal:  J Pharmacokinet Biopharm       Date:  1984-02

3.  Assessment of 75/75 rule: FDA viewpoint.

Authors:  B E Cabana
Journal:  J Pharm Sci       Date:  1983-01       Impact factor: 3.534

4.  Statistical simulation study of new proposed uniformity requirement for bioequivalency studies.

Authors:  J D Haynes
Journal:  J Pharm Sci       Date:  1981-06       Impact factor: 3.534

5.  The bioavailability of erythromycin stearate versus enteric-coated erythromycin base when taken immediately before and after food.

Authors:  D Clayton; A Leslie
Journal:  J Int Med Res       Date:  1981       Impact factor: 1.671

  5 in total
  27 in total

1.  Subject-by-formulation interaction in bioequivalence: conceptual and statistical issues. FDA Population/Individual Bioequivalence Working Group. Food and Drug Administration.

Authors:  W W Hauck; T Hyslop; M L Chen; R Patnaik; R L Williams
Journal:  Pharm Res       Date:  2000-04       Impact factor: 4.200

Review 2.  Individual bioequivalence revisited.

Authors:  M L Chen; L J Lesko
Journal:  Clin Pharmacokinet       Date:  2001       Impact factor: 6.447

3.  Biometrical evaluation of bioequivalence trials using a bootstrap individual direct curve comparison method.

Authors:  E Zintzaras; P Bouka; A Kowald
Journal:  Eur J Drug Metab Pharmacokinet       Date:  2002 Jan-Mar       Impact factor: 2.441

4.  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

5.  Statistical aspects of bioequivalence testing between two medicinal products.

Authors:  E Zintzaras
Journal:  Eur J Drug Metab Pharmacokinet       Date:  2005 Jan-Jun       Impact factor: 2.441

Review 6.  Controversies in bioequivalence studies.

Authors:  V W Steinijans; D Hauschke; J H Jonkman
Journal:  Clin Pharmacokinet       Date:  1992-04       Impact factor: 6.447

7.  Spline functions in convolutional modeling of verapamil bioavailability and bioequivalence. I: conceptual and numerical issues.

Authors:  J Popović
Journal:  Eur J Drug Metab Pharmacokinet       Date:  2006 Apr-Jun       Impact factor: 2.441

8.  Including information on the therapeutic window in bioequivalence acceptance.

Authors:  Tom Jacobs; Filip De Ridder; Sarah Rusch; Achiel Van Peer; Geert Molenberghs; Luc Bijnens
Journal:  Pharm Res       Date:  2008-07-18       Impact factor: 4.200

Review 9.  Evaluation of bioequivalence for highly variable drugs with scaled average bioequivalence.

Authors:  Laszlo Tothfalusi; Laszlo Endrenyi; Alfredo Garcia Arieta
Journal:  Clin Pharmacokinet       Date:  2009       Impact factor: 6.447

10.  A history of biopharmaceutics in the Food and Drug Administration 1968-1993.

Authors:  Jerome Philip Skelly
Journal:  AAPS J       Date:  2009-11-20       Impact factor: 4.009

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.