Literature DB >> 8500920

Variation of Cmax and Cmax/AUC in investigations of bioequivalence.

L Endrenyi1, W Yan.   

Abstract

In order to enable the setting of regulatory criteria for the equivalence of absorption rates on a sound scientific basis, the variation of Cmax/AUC and Cmax was evaluated. Under most conditions, the variation of Cmax/AUC was 10-25% higher than that of AUC independently of the variability of the extent of absorption. By contrast, the variation of Cmax was 50-60% higher than that of AUC and was strongly dependent on the variability of the extent of absorption. Therefore, it is recommended that for establishing the equivalence of absorption rates, the 90% confidence limits for the percentage ratio of the Cmax/AUC values of two drug products should be (based on their logarithmic averages or medians) between 75 and 133%. Regulatory decisions based on Cmax, while not favored, should expect that the 90% confidence limits for the percentage ratio of the Cmax values of two drug products be (based on their logarithmic averages or medians) between 70 and 143%. These recommendations parallel and are contingent upon the internationally harmonized criterion for the equivalence of extents of absorption which requires that the 90% confidence limits for the percentage ratio of two AUC values (based on their logarithmic averages or medians) be between 80 and 125%.

Mesh:

Year:  1993        PMID: 8500920

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Int J Clin Pharmacol Ther Toxicol        ISSN: 0174-4879


  10 in total

Review 1.  Measures of exposure versus measures of rate and extent of absorption.

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

2.  Estimation of Cmax and Tmax in populations after single and multiple drug administrations.

Authors:  Laszlo Tothfalusi; Laszlo Endrenyi
Journal:  J Pharmacokinet Pharmacodyn       Date:  2003-10       Impact factor: 2.745

3.  Absorption rate vs. exposure: which is more useful for bioequivalence testing?

Authors:  T N Tozer; F Y Bois; W W Hauck; M L Chen; R L Williams
Journal:  Pharm Res       Date:  1996-03       Impact factor: 4.200

4.  The Two Main Goals of Bioequivalence Studies.

Authors:  Laszlo Endrenyi; Henning H Blume; Laszlo Tothfalusi
Journal:  AAPS J       Date:  2017-02-02       Impact factor: 4.009

Review 5.  Metrics for the evaluation of bioequivalence of modified-release formulations.

Authors:  Laszlo Endrenyi; Laszlo Tothfalusi
Journal:  AAPS J       Date:  2012-08-22       Impact factor: 4.009

6.  Bioavailability of immediate- and extended-release formulations of glipizide in healthy male volunteers.

Authors:  Sanju Dhawan; Bhupinder Singh; Santosh Kumar Garg; Debasish Hota; Radharaman Jiban Dash; Anil Kumar Singla; Vivek Ranjan Sinha
Journal:  Clin Pharmacokinet       Date:  2006       Impact factor: 6.447

7.  Evaluation of pharmacokinetic interaction between cetirizine and ritonavir, an HIV-1 protease inhibitor, in healthy male volunteers.

Authors:  G Peytavin; C Gautran; C Otoul; A C Cremieux; B Moulaert; F Delatour; M Melac; M Strolin-Benedetti; R Farinotti
Journal:  Eur J Clin Pharmacol       Date:  2005-05-12       Impact factor: 2.953

8.  Effects of food on the pharmacokinetics of methylphenidate.

Authors:  K K Midha; G McKay; M J Rawson; E D Korchinski; J W Hubbard
Journal:  Pharm Res       Date:  2001-08       Impact factor: 4.200

9.  Comparison of two recombinant erythropoietin formulations in patients with anemia due to end-stage renal disease on hemodialysis: a parallel, randomized, double blind study.

Authors:  Jorge F Pérez-Oliva; Martha Casanova-González; Idrian García-García; Pedro J Porrero-Martín; Carmen M Valenzuela-Silva; Tairí Hernández-Montero; Marcia Lagarde-Ampudia; Yuri Casanova-Kutsareva; Yisel Avila-Albuerne; Alicia Vargas-Batista; Hailen Bobillo-López; Raúl Herrera-Valdés; Pedro A López-Saura
Journal:  BMC Nephrol       Date:  2005-05-23       Impact factor: 2.388

10.  A compatibility evaluation between the physiologically based pharmacokinetic (PBPK) model and the compartmental PK model using the lumping method with real cases.

Authors:  Hyo-Jeong Ryu; Won-Ho Kang; Taeheon Kim; Jae Kyoung Kim; Kwang-Hee Shin; Jung-Woo Chae; Hwi-Yeol Yun
Journal:  Front Pharmacol       Date:  2022-08-12       Impact factor: 5.988

  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.