Browse > Article
http://dx.doi.org/10.4333/KPS.2009.39.4.233

Considering Aspects for the Revision of Current Bioequivalence Guideline  

Lee, Yong-Bok (College of Pharmacy, Institute of Bioequivalence and Bridging Study, Chonnam National University)
Publication Information
Journal of Pharmaceutical Investigation / v.39, no.4, 2009 , pp. 233-242 More about this Journal
Abstract
Bioequivalence (BE) studies provide important information in the overall set of data that ensure the availability of safe and effective medicines to patients and practitioners. Thus its determination of proper criterion for assessing BE is very important. BE is frequently expressed or measured by estimating area under the plasma concentration-time curve (AUC) and maximum concentration ($C_{max}$) that are reflective of systemic exposure. In all countries except Canada, the acceptance criteria of BE is that the 90% confidence interval of difference in the average values of logarithmic AUC and $C_{max}$ between test and reference products is within the acceptable range of log(0.8) ${\sim}$ log(1.25). In Canada, unlike other countries, point estimation instead of applying 90% confidence interval is applied to assess $C_{max}$ which is, in essence, more variable than AUC. We also compared other parts of BE guidelines which include a fed study, average BE (ABE), scaled-ABE, population BE (PBE), individual BE (IBE), dropout & withdrawal, sampling frequency & time and number of subjects. This article reviews the most recent BE guidelines of Korea, USA, Europe, Canada and Japan, highlighting the differences focused on Korean BE guidelines compared to other countries. It will help us to revise BE guideline of Korea reflecting international trends. Finally, it is strongly recommended that the extended acceptance criterion for the highly variable drug among all the considering aspects for the revision of current BE guideline has to be adopted into Korea BE guideline in the nearest future.
Keywords
Bioequivalence; Highly variable drug; Acceptance criterion;
Citations & Related Records
Times Cited By KSCI : 2  (Citation Analysis)
연도 인용수 순위
1 M.L. Chen, R. Patnaik, W.W. Hauck, D.J. Schuirmann, T. Hyslop and R. Williams, An Individual Bioequivalence Criterion: Regulatory Considerations, Statist. Med., 19, 2821-2842 (2000).   DOI   ScienceOn
2 G. Ekbohm and H. Melander, The Subject-by-Formulation Interaction as a Criterion of Interchangeability of Drugs, Biometrics., 45, 1249-1254 (1989)
3 L. Endrenyi, G.L. Amidon, K.K. Midha and J.P. Skelly, Individual Bioequivalence: Attractive in Principle, Difficult in Practice, Pharm. Res., 15, 1321-1325 (1998)   DOI   ScienceOn
4 D.J. Holder and F. Hsuan, Moment-Based Criteria for Determining Bioequivalence, Biometrika., 80, 835-846 (1993)   DOI   ScienceOn
5 W.W. Hauck and S. Anderson, Measuring Switchability and Prescribability: When is Average Bioequivalence Sufficient?, Journal of Pharmacokinetics and Biopharmaceutics., 22, 551-564 (1994).   DOI   ScienceOn
6 R. Schall, Assessment of Individual and Population Bioequivalence Using the Probability that Bioavailabilities are Similar, Biometrics., 51, 615-626 (1995).   DOI   ScienceOn
7 L. Tothfalusi, L. Endrenyi, K.K. Midha, M.J. Rawson and J.W. Hubbard, Evaluation of the Bioequivalence of Highly-Variable Drugs and Drug Products, Pharm. Res., 18, 728-733 (2001).   DOI   ScienceOn
8 Concept Paper for an Addendum to the Note for Guidance on the Investigation of Bioavailability and Bioequivalence: Evaluation of Bioequivalence of Highly Variable Drugs And Drug Products, CHMP, EMEA (2006).
9 S. Anderson and W.W. Hauck, Consideration of Individual Bioequivalence, Journal of Pharmacokinetics and Biopharmaceutics., 18, 259-273 (1990)   DOI   ScienceOn
10 E.K. Kimanani and D. Potvin, A Parametric Confidence Interval for a Moment-Based Scaled Criterion for Individual Bioequivalence, Journal of harmacokinetics and Biopharmaceutics., 25, 595-614 (1997)   DOI   ScienceOn
11 L. Endrenyi, N. Taback and L. Tothfalusi, Properties of the Estimated Variance Component for Subject-by-Formulation Interaction in Studies of Individual Bioequivalence, Statist. Med., 19, 2867-2878 (2000)   DOI   ScienceOn
12 T. Hyslop, F. Hsuan and D.J. Holder, A Small Sample Confidence Interval Approach to Assess Individual Bioequivalence, Statist. Med., 19, 2885-2897 (2000)   DOI   ScienceOn
13 D.M. Rom and E.H. Hwang, Testing for Individual and Population Equivalence Based on the Proportion of Similar Responses, Statist. Med., 15, 1489-1505 (1996)   DOI   ScienceOn
14 R. Schall and R.L. Williams, Towards a Practical Strategy for Assessing Individual Bioequivalence, Journal of Pharmacokinetics and Biopharmaceutics., 24, 133-149 (1996).   DOI   ScienceOn
15 J. Vuorinen and J. Turunen, A Three-Step Procedure for Assessing Bioequivalence in the General Mixed Model Framework, Statist. Med., 15, 2635-2655 (1996)   DOI   ScienceOn
16 L. Endrenyi and K.K. Midha, Individual Bioequivalence-has its Time Come?, Eur. J. Pharm. Sci., 6, 271-277 (1998)   DOI   ScienceOn
17 L. Endrenyi and L. Tothfalusi, Subject-by-Formulation Interaction in Determinations of Individual Bioequivalence: Bias and Prevalence, Pharm. Res., 16, 186-190 (1999)   DOI   ScienceOn
18 Note for Guidance on the Investigation of Bioavailability and Bioequivalence, CPMP, EMEA (2001).
19 Guideline for Industry: Bioavailability and Bioequivalence Studies for Orally Administered Drug Products-General Considerations, CDER, US FDA (2003).
20 W.W. Hauck, T. Hyslop, M.L. Chen, R. Patnaik and R.L.Williams, Subject-by-Formulation Interaction in Bioequivalence: Conceptual and Statistical Issues, Pharm. Res., 17, 375-380 (2000)   DOI   ScienceOn
21 의약품동등성시험관리규정, 식품의약품안전청 고시 제2007-23호 (2007).
22 Y.J. Lee, H.J. Yi, H.G. Kim, J.H. Oh, Y.J. Shin, Y.G. Kim and S.N. Kim, One-step Sample Size Determination for 2${\times}$2 Bioequivalence Study, J. Kor. Pharm. Sci., 39, 217-219 (2009).   과학기술학회마을   DOI   ScienceOn
23 M.L Chen, V. Shah, R. Patnaik, W. Adams, A. Hussain, D. Conner, M. Mehta, H. Malinowski, J. Lazor, S.M. Huang, D. Hare, L. Lesko, D. Sporn and R. Williams, Bioavailability and Bioequivalence: An FDA Regulatory Overview, Pharm. Res., 18, 1645-1650 (2001).   DOI   ScienceOn
24 생물학적동등성시험기준, 식품의약품안전청 고시 제2008-22호 (2008).
25 I.S. Park, K.H. Choi, J.S. Yang and D.S. Kim, The Guidelines of Bioequivalence Test and Present Status in Korea, J. Kor. Pharm. Sci., 29, 247-251 (1999).   과학기술학회마을
26 생물학적동등성 인정품목 공고, 식품의약품안전청 (2009).
27 S.O. Choi, S.H. Jung, S.Y. Um, S.J. Jung, J.I. Kim and S.Y. Chung, Food-Effect Bioavailability and Fed Bioequivalence Studies, J. Kor. Pharm. Sci., 34, 223-228 (2004)   과학기술학회마을   DOI   ScienceOn
28 Guidance for Industry: Statistical Approaches to Establishing Bioequivalence, CDER, US FDA (2001)
29 Guidance for Industry: Conduct and Analysis of Bioavailability and Bioequivalence Studies - Part A: Oral Dosage Formulations Used for Systemic Effects, Health Canada, Canada (1992).
30 Guideline for Bioequivalence Studies of Generic Products, NIHS, Japan (2006)
31 L. Tothfalusi and L. Endrenyi, Limits for the Scaled Average Bioequivalence of Highly Variable Drugs and Drug Products, Pharm. Res., 20, 382-389 (2003)   DOI   ScienceOn
32 Guideline for Industry: Food-Effect Bioavailability and Fed Bioequivalence Studies, CDER, US FDA (2002).
33 Guidance for Industry: Bioequivalence Requirements: Comparative Bioavailability Studies Conducted in the Fed State, Health Canada, Canada (2005).
34 K.K. Midha, V.P. Shah, G.J.P. Singh and R. Patnaik, Conference Report: Bio-International 2005, J. Pharm. Sci., 96, 747-754 (2007).   DOI   ScienceOn
35 Discussion Paper: Bioequivalence Requirements: Highly Variable Drugs and Highly Variable Drug Products: Issues and Options, Health Canada, Canada (2003)
36 S.D. Patterson, N. Zariffa, T.H. Montague and K. Howland, Non-traditional Study Designs to Demonstrate Average Bioequivalence for Highly Variable Drug Products, Eur. J. Clin. Pharmacol., 57, 663-670 (2001)   DOI   ScienceOn
37 I.H. Baek, S.H. Seong and K.I. Kwon, Bioequivalence Approaches for Highly Variable Drugs: Issue and Solution, Kor. J. Clin. Pharm., 19, 50-60 (2009)
38 L. Endrenyi and L. Tothfalusi, Regulatory Conditions for the Determination of Bioequivalence of Highly Variable Drugs J. Pharm. Pharmaceut. Sci., 12, 138-149 (2009)   DOI
39 J.S. Barrett, V. Batra, A. Chow, J. Cook, A.L. Gould, A.H. Heller, M.W. Lo, S.D. Patterson, B.P. Smith, J.A. Stritar, J.M. Vega and N. Zariffa, PhRMA Perspective on Population and Individual Bioequivalence, J. Clin. Pharmacol., 40, 561-570 (2000)   DOI   ScienceOn
40 S. Senn, Statistical Issues in Bioequivalence, Statist. Med.,20, 2785-2799 (2001).   DOI   ScienceOn
41 V.P. Shah, A. Yacobi, W.H. Barr, L.Z. Benet, D. Breimer, M.R. Dobrinska, L. Endrenyi, W. Fairweather, W. Gillespie, M.A. Gonzalez, J. Hooper, A. Jackson, L.J. Lesko, K.K. Midha, P.K. Noonan, R. Patnaik and R.L. Williams, Evaluation of Orally Administered Highly Variable Drugs and Drug Formulations, Pharm. Res., 13, 1590-1594 (1996)   DOI   ScienceOn
42 Guideline on the Investigation of Bioequivalence, CHMP,EMEA (2008)
43 T.M. Yoo, S.W. Yi, I.S. Park, S.K. Suh, M.R. Ahn, H.S. Choi, S. Jin, S.J. Sohn and J.S. Yang, Guidelines of Bioequivalence Studies of Medical Products in Europe, J. Kor. Pharm. Sci., 30, 299-307 (2000).   과학기술학회마을
44 Multisource (Generic) Pharmaceutical Products: Guidelines on Registration Requirements to Establish Interchangeability, WHO (2005)
45 A.L. Gould, A Practical Approach for Evaluating Population and Individual Bioequivalence., Statist. Med., 19, 2721-2740 (2000)   DOI   ScienceOn
46 S.H. Haidar, B. Davit, M.L. Chen, D. Conner, L. Lee, Q.H. Li, R. Lionberger, F. Makhlouf, D. Patel, D.J. Schuirmann, and L.X. Yu, Bioequivalence Approaches for Highly Variable Drugs and Drug Products, Pharm. Res., 25, 237-241 (2008).   DOI   ScienceOn
47 J.T.G. Hwang and W. Wang, The Validity of the Test of Individual Equivalence Ratios, Biometrika., 84, 893-900 (1997)   DOI   ScienceOn