Literature DB >> 9563068

The duration of measuring partial AUCs for the assessment of bioequivalence.

L Endrenyi1, F Csizmadia, L Tothfalusi, A H Balch, M L Chen.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: To determine favourable sampling conditions for assessing bioequivalence by the comparison of partial AUCs in the early phase of concentration-time profiles.
METHODS: Two-period crossover trials were simulated. They assumed a wide range of the ratios of absorption rate constants of the test (T) and reference (R) formulations (kaT/kaR). Averages and standard deviations of the corresponding ratios of simulated partial AUCs (AUCpT/AUCpR) were determined together with the statistical power of assessing bioequivalence, i.e., the percentage of simulated trials in which bioequivalence was declared.
RESULTS: The power for stating bioequivalence was high when AUCp was recorded until the earlier rather than the later of two peaks in each subject. Similarly, power was comparatively high when AUCp was measured until the time of the reference peak instead of multiples of this time. Power was high also when AUCp was determined until the fixed true, population mean time of the reference formulation instead of multiples of this time. The pattern for the kinetic sensitivity parallelled that found for the power, while the standard deviations changed generally in the opposite direction.
CONCLUSIONS: The effectiveness (power) of evaluating bioequivalence in the early phase of concentration-time profiles by partial AUCs generally decreases when the duration for measuring the metric is extended. Among the investigated designs, determination of partial AUCs until the earlier of two peaks in each subject is the most powerful.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1998        PMID: 9563068     DOI: 10.1023/a:1011916113082

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Pharm Res        ISSN: 0724-8741            Impact factor:   4.200


  10 in total

1.  An alternative approach for assessment of rate of absorption in bioequivalence studies.

Authors:  M L Chen
Journal:  Pharm Res       Date:  1992-11       Impact factor: 4.200

2.  Cmax/AUC is a clearer measure than Cmax for absorption rates in investigations of bioequivalence.

Authors:  L Endrenyi; S Fritsch; W Yan
Journal:  Int J Clin Pharmacol Ther Toxicol       Date:  1991-10

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.  An improved intercept method for the assessment of absorption rate in bioequivalence studies.

Authors:  P Macheras; M Symillides; C Reppas
Journal:  Pharm Res       Date:  1996-11       Impact factor: 4.200

5.  Sensitive and specific determination of the equivalence of absorption rates.

Authors:  L Endrenyi; P Al-Shaikh
Journal:  Pharm Res       Date:  1995-12       Impact factor: 4.200

6.  Truncated AUC evaluates effectively the bioequivalence of drugs with long half-lives.

Authors:  L Endrenyi; L Tothfalusi
Journal:  Int J Clin Pharmacol Ther       Date:  1997-04       Impact factor: 1.366

7.  The cutoff time point of the partial area method for assessment of rate of absorption in bioequivalence studies.

Authors:  P Macheras; M Symillides; C Reppas
Journal:  Pharm Res       Date:  1994-06       Impact factor: 4.200

8.  Bioequivalence: performance of several measures of rate of absorption.

Authors:  F Y Bois; T N Tozer; W W Hauck; M L Chen; R Patnaik; R L Williams
Journal:  Pharm Res       Date:  1994-07       Impact factor: 4.200

9.  Without extrapolation, Cmax/AUC is an effective metric in investigations of bioequivalence.

Authors:  L Tothfalusi; L Endrenyi
Journal:  Pharm Res       Date:  1995-06       Impact factor: 4.200

10.  Bioequivalence: performance of several measures of extent of absorption.

Authors:  F Y Bois; T N Tozer; W W Hauck; M L Chen; R Patnaik; R L Williams
Journal:  Pharm Res       Date:  1994-05       Impact factor: 4.200

  10 in total
  9 in total

1.  Where are we now and where do we go next in terms of the scientific basis for regulation on bioavailability and bioequivalence? FDA Biopharmaceutics Coordinating Committee.

Authors:  R L Williams; W Adams; M L Chen; D Hare; A Hussain; L Lesko; R Patnaik; V Shah
Journal:  Eur J Drug Metab Pharmacokinet       Date:  2000 Jan-Mar       Impact factor: 2.441

2.  Sensitivity of empirical metrics of rate of absorption in bioequivalence studies.

Authors:  A Ring; L Tothfalusi; L Endrenyi; M Weiss
Journal:  Pharm Res       Date:  2000-05       Impact factor: 4.200

Review 3.  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

Review 4.  Using partial area for evaluation of bioavailability and bioequivalence.

Authors:  Mei-Ling Chen; Barbara Davit; Robert Lionberger; Zakaria Wahba; Hae-Young Ahn; Lawrence X Yu
Journal:  Pharm Res       Date:  2011-04-13       Impact factor: 4.200

5.  The BioGIT System: a Valuable In Vitro Tool to Assess the Impact of Dose and Formulation on Early Exposure to Low Solubility Drugs After Oral Administration.

Authors:  Alexandros Kourentas; Maria Vertzoni; Vicky Barmpatsalou; Patrick Augustijns; Stefania Beato; James Butler; Rene Holm; Neils Ouwerkerk; Joerg Rosenberg; Tomokazu Tajiri; Christer Tannergren; Mira Symillides; Christos Reppas
Journal:  AAPS J       Date:  2018-05-24       Impact factor: 4.009

Review 6.  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

7.  Exposure-response analysis reveals that clinically important toxicity difference can exist between bioequivalent carbamazepine tablets.

Authors:  Laszlo Tothfalusi; Szilvia Speidl; Laszlo Endrenyi
Journal:  Br J Clin Pharmacol       Date:  2007-08-15       Impact factor: 4.335

8.  Metrics comparing simulated early concentration profiles for the determination of bioequivalence.

Authors:  L Endrenyi; F Csizmadia; L Tothfalusi; M L Chen
Journal:  Pharm Res       Date:  1998-08       Impact factor: 4.200

9.  Use of partial AUC (PAUC) to evaluate bioequivalence--a case study with complex absorption: methylphenidate.

Authors:  Jeanne Fourie Zirkelbach; Andre J Jackson; Yaning Wang; Donald J Schuirmann
Journal:  Pharm Res       Date:  2012-09-25       Impact factor: 4.200

  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.