Consideration of individual bioequivalence

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.     

Consideration of individual bioequivalence

Current procedures for assessing the bioequivatence 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, which we refer to as individual (or within-subject) 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 () 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.     

Extension to the use of tolerance intervals for the assessment of individual bioequivalence

For the determination of bioequivalence, researchers have recently shifted their emphasis from average bioequivalence alone to average and individual bioequivalence. Existing methods for assessing average bioequivalence were first developed for the standard 2 × 2 crossover design, but these methods are easily generalized to the two-treatment, ρ-period crossover designs (e.g., TRR, RTT, and TTRR, RRTT, TRRT, RTTR). With respect to individual bioequivalence, Westlake (1,2) implemented the use of parametric and distribution-free tolerance intervals for assessing individual bioequivalence. Anderson and Hauck (3) described what they call the test of individual equivalence ratios (TIER) for the same purpose. Note that these methods have been applied and/or developed only for the standard 2 × 2 crossover design. The present work extends the method of using parametric tolerance intervals for assessing individual bioequivalence.     

Individual bioequivalence revisited.

For decades, the establishment of bioequivalence has generally relied on the comparison of population averages between the test and reference formulations. In the early 1990s, individual bioequivalence was proposed to ensure that an individual could be switched from the reference product to the test product with unchanged efficacy and safety. Since 1997, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has published three guidance documents on the proposed criterion and statistical methodology for the individual bioequivalence approach. From a scientific stand-point, the individual bioequivalence criterion appears to offer several advantages for some drug products compared with the average criterion. It allows comparison of intraindividual variances, scaling the bioequivalence criterion to the reference variability and detection of an important subject-by-formulation interaction if it exists. Based on these considerations, the FDA has recently recommended replicate study designs for modified release dosage forms and highly variable drug products. The new criterion also promotes inclusion of a heterogeneous population of volunteers in bioequivalence studies. Despite all the advantages of the individual bioequivalence approach, questions remain on the optimal use of replicate study designs and the proposed criterion for evaluation of bioequivalence between formulations. In the finalised guidance documents, therefore, the FDA maintains the average bioequivalence criterion while allowing other criteria under certain circumstances. Collection and analysis of bioequivalence data from replicate study designs may permit further assessment and resolution of these questions.     

Examining outlying subjects and outlying records in bioequivalence trials

The problem of detecting outliers in bioequivalence trials is considered. We formulate the problem as a hypothesis-testing problem under a mean-shift model and propose a test procedure based on the likelihood function. The test statistic has two components: one is to detect whether a specific pharmacokinetic measurement of a subject for certain formulation/drug product is an outlying value; the other is to test whether a subject as a whole is an outlying subject (with unusual high or low bioavailability for all formulations/drug products). Under normality assumption, the proposed procedure is most powerful. The small sample distribution of the proposed test statistic is derived. A numerical example illustrates the use of the procedure. The proposed test is then compared in a simulation study against the Hotelling T2 test, recommended by Liu and Weng (1991) for the use of outlier detection in bioequivalence studies. The results from the simulation study show that the proposed test is more powerful than the Hotelling T2 test.     

Bioequivalence Assessment of Generic Products: An Innovative South African Approach

Concurrent with the implementation of new legislation mandating Generic Substitution in South Africa, a new set of guidelines for bioavailability and bioequivalence have been published. Since one of the main objectives of the new legislation in South Africa relating to Generic Substitution is to ensure that medicines of high quality, safety, and efficacy are made more accessible and more affordable to the wider public, the need to speed up approval of such multi-source products has become a regulatory priority. In order to facilitate this process, various bioequivalence issues have been addressed including important issues such as the acceptance criteria and associated bioequivalence intervals, use of a foreign reference product and the issue of assessing highly variable drugs (HVDs). In addition, dispensations have been made with respect to food effect assessment and variability relating to genetic polymorphism in drug metabolism (genotyping/phenotyping). Furthermore, the use of “old” biostudies submitted in support of an application is subject to expiry date. Acceptance of appropriate data requires that specific criteria such as C_max and AUC, in addition to the usual considerations, also meet the limits specified by the particular registration authority of the country where such products are intended to be marketed. Generally, these limits require that the 90% confidence interval (CI) for AUC and C_max test/reference ratios lies within the acceptance interval of 0.80–1.25 calculated using log-transformed data. While such acceptance criteria are, in general, ubiquitous, some differences in acceptance criteria do exist between various countries. The new guidelines for bioavailability/bioequivalence studies developed by the South African regulatory authority, the Medicines Control Council (MCC), makes provision for highly variable drugs and the use of a non-South African reference product. The MCC requires that the acceptance criterion for C_max ratios be set at 0.75–1.33 while maintaining AUC ratios at 0.80–1.25 using a 90% CI. Furthermore, provision is made to apply scaling based on average bioequivalence assessment and, as an interim measure, consideration has also been given to the use of a foreign reference product provided that equivalence between that product and the innovator product currently available on the South African market can be shown using in vitro testing.     

New bioequivalence studies: individual bioequivalence and population bioequivalence

The bioequivalence study which is currently conducted in different countries is the so-called average bioequivalence approach; this approach has been indicated to be insufficient for assessing switchability between two formulations (i.e., from the reference formulation to the test formulation). In the U.S., therefore, the population bioequivalence approach and the individual bioequivalence approach were recently proposed as the studies which would replace the current average bioequivalence approach. The average bioequivalence approach compares only the mean parameters of the test and reference formulations in the subject groups which received them. In contrast, the population bioequivalence approach guarantees prescribability by assessing the total variances of bioavailability values of the test and reference formulations in addition to the average bioequivalence. The individual bioequivalence approach guarantees switchability from the reference formulation to the test formulation by assessing the intrasubject variance and subject-by-formulation interaction in addition to the average bioequivalence. We introduce the individual bioequivalence approach and the population bioequivalence approach in comparison with the current average bioequivalence approach and have discussed the characteristics and issues of each of these three bioequivalence approaches.     

Using Partial Area for Evaluation of Bioavailability and Bioequivalence

Assessment of bioavailability/bioequivalence generally relies on the comparison of rate and extent of drug absorption between products. Rate of absorption is commonly expressed by peak concentration (C_max) and time to peak concentration (T_max), although these parameters are indirect measures of absorption rate. Recognizing the importance of systemic exposure to drug efficacy and safety, FDA recommended that systemic exposure be better used for bioavailability/bioequivalence assessment. Apart from peak exposure and total exposure, FDA also recommended a new metric for early exposure that is considered necessary when a control of input rate is critical to ascertain drug efficacy and/or safety profile. The early exposure can be measured by truncating the area under the curve at T_max of the reference product (PAUC_r,tmax) or some designated early time after dosing. The choice of truncation is most appropriately based on PK/PD relationship or efficacy/safety data for the drug under examination. Compared with C_max, PAUC_r,tmax has higher sensitivity in detecting formulation differences and may be more variable. If the metric is highly variable, the reference-scaling approach can be employed for bioequivalence evaluation. The partial area metric is useful in PK/PD characterization as well as in the evaluation of bioavailability, bioequivalence and/or comparability.     

Who needs individual bioequivalence studies for narrow therapeutic index drugs? A case for warfarin

Warfarin is, among drugs, considered to have a narrow therapeutic index for which individual bioequivalence has been suggested. To establish the propriety of "switching," an individual bioequivalence study involving a replicate-design study and three "switchings" in healthy subjects was undertaken using the U.S.-brand warfarin sodium tablet and a generic product. A randomized, single-center, open-label, single-dose, four-way crossover replicate bioequivalence study was performed in 24 healthy male volunteers in which each subject received the same 5 mg warfarin test and reference tablets twice on different occasions under fasting conditions. Concentrations of warfarin in plasma were measured by a validated specific HPLC method. The individual pharmacokinetic parameters obtained with test and reference products were compared using pooled data and Liu's method. Bioequivalence was shown with both average and individual bioequivalence methods. The individual bioequivalence assessment did not show a subject-by-formulation interaction, nor did it add value to the bioequivalence assessment of warfarin.     

Assessing bioequivalence and drug interchangeability

ABSTRACT

As indicated by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), approved generic drug products can be used as substitutes for their respective innovative drug products. The FDA, however, does not indicate that two generic copies of the same innovative drug can be used interchangeably, even though they have been shown to be bioequivalent to the same innovative drug product. As more and more generic drug products become available in the market place, it is a concern whether these approved generic drug products have the same quality and safety/efficacy and hence can be used interchangeably. To address the issue of drug interchangeability, several criteria such as individual bioequivalence criterion, a criterion based on the variability due to subject-by-drug interaction, and a scaled criterion for drug interchangeability (SCDI) have been proposed in the literature. In this article, the performances of these criteria, including a newly proposed reversed average bioequivalence criterion, are studied under a 2x4 replicated crossover design in terms of the percentage of passing at the best and worst possible scenarios of similarity. The goal of this paper is to investigate the interchangeability in terms of switchability between a generic (test) drug product and an originator (reference) drug product.     

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

Bioequivalence of two medicinal, or veterinary, products is established by comparing the mean of bioavailability measures, such as AUC and Cmax, following administration of the test (T) and reference (R) products. However, the use of these parameters has several drawbacks, e.g. they do not take into consideration the overall pharmacokinetic profile shape. Therefore, concerns have been raised regarding their appropriateness for assessment of bioequivalence. To overcome the limitations of these bioequivalence parameters, direct curve comparison metrics methods were recently proposed on an average basis. In this paper, an individual based direct curve comparison method for assessing bioequivalence is proposed. The bioequivalence of T and R in each subject is evaluated by a new curve comparison metrics delta. The metrics delta is the absolute sum of the difference between two curves. The significance of the metrics for each subject is assessed by bootstrapping. An overall bioequivalence of T and R may be considered if less than 25% of the subjects show statistically different profiles.     

<Emphasis Type="Italic">In vitro</Emphasis> Approaches to Support Bioequivalence and Substitutability of Generic Proton Pump Inhibitors via Nasogastric Tube Administration

Administration of proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) through nasogastric tubes may present risks. If the PPI drug products are not prepared properly, clogging or obstruction of nasogastric tubes can pose a safety concern. In addition, the integrity of the enteric coating of the drug product may be damaged resulting in reduced bioavailability of the active moiety. From the perspective of administration of generic PPIs when compared to the reference drug product, differences in formulation can potentially result in a greater relative risk for the generic drug product. As part of the assessment of bioequivalence, the Office of Generic Drugs (OGD) has developed a suite of in vitro testing to compare the delivery of the generic and reference products via nasogastric tubes. These in vitro tests assess essential attributes associated with the likelihood of clogging and maintenance of the enteric coating. These in vitro tests include studies evaluating sedimentation, granule size distribution, drug recovery, and acid resistance. One of the challenges is that while the administration of PPIs through nasogastric tubes is common in clinical practice, this issue is not uniformly addressed in the FDA approved label of the reference drug products. This paper discusses the design and rationale for in vitro testing of PPI formulations with respect to bioequivalence via nasogastric tube administration and in addition, it summarizes commonly occurring deficiencies in the in vitro nasogastric tube testing of 14 recent Abbreviated New Drug Applications (ANDA) submitted for five generic PPI drug products.     

Assessing Bioequivalence Using Genomic Data

Abstract

For approval of a generic drug product, the assessment of bioequivalence in drug absorption is usually considered as a surrogate for evaluation of drug efficacy and safety in clinical studies. For some drug products, the United States Food and Drug Administration indicates that the assessment of similarity between dissolution profiles may be used as a surrogate for assessment of bioequivalence. Along this line, we propose assessing bioequivalence using genomic data collected from the same individuals, assuming that there is an established relationship between pharmacokinetic and genomic data. Because there may be a bias in the prediction of pharmacokinetic data using genomic data and the variations in these two types of data are different, we propose to assess bioequivalence based on sensitivity analysis of prediction bias and variation difference within some predetermined limits. Our methods are derived for average, population, and individual bioequivalence.     

Assessing bioequivalence using genomic data

For approval of a generic drug product, the assessment of bioequivalence in drug absorption is usually considered as a surrogate for evaluation of drug efficacy and safety in clinical studies. For some drug products, the United States Food and Drug Administration indicates that the assessment of similarity between dissolution profiles may be used as a surrogate for assessment of bioequivalence. Along this line, we propose assessing bioequivalence using genomic data collected from the same individuals, assuming that there is an established relationship between pharmacokinetic and genomic data. Because there may be a bias in the prediction of pharmacokinetic data using genomic data and the variations in these two types of data are different, we propose to assess bioequivalence based on sensitivity analysis of prediction bias and variation difference within some predetermined limits. Our methods are derived for average, population, and individual bioequivalence.     

Bioequivalence between generic tacrolimus products marketed in Spain by adjusted indirect comparison

Purpose

The objective of the study was to investigate the relative bioavailability between the generic tacrolimus products that are presently authorized in Spain by adjusted indirect comparison. This was based on demonstration of bioequivalence with the reference product (Prograf, Astellas Pharma), which makes these generic tacrolimus products prescribable, switchable and therapeutically equivalent to the reference product; yet, according to Spanish legislation, only prescribers can switch tacrolimus-containing products.

Methods

Data from independent bioequivalence studies that compare each generic product with the reference product were combined by adjusted indirect comparisons to investigate the relative bioavailability between generic drug products, since there is no direct bioequivalence study comparing generics to each other.

Results

Eight generic tacrolimus products in the form of capsules are presently authorized in Spain, but only five are marketed. These eight products represent only three different generic product developments. One product is authorized with four different names/companies, while another is authorized under three different names/companies. The adjusted indirect comparisons between generic products show bioequivalence within the conventional 80–125 % confidence interval acceptance criteria for area under the curve (AUC) and maximum concentration (Cmax).

Conclusion

Not only are the generic products bioequivalent with the reference product, but also with each other.     

生物利用度和生物等效性分析软件简介

考虑生物利用度的影响因素,仿制药物（或制剂）与参比对象采用相同的等效剂量,应能达到生物等效。生物利用度一般用以下几个药代动力学参数衡量：曲线下面积（AUC）,峰浓度（Cmax）,达峰时间（tmax）。本论文以双交叉生物等效性试验为例,介绍自主开发的生物等效性分析软件BA＆BE,该软件使用便捷、界面友好,可用于临床药理和新药研发等相关领域。软件允许用户直接在网格界面进行数据录入,设置变量和参数。系统便可自行对原始数据进行方差分析（ANOVA）、生物利用度和生物等效性的计算并生成报表。该软件将有助于科研人员更迅速、准确地进行数据分析和提交结果。     

Challenges and Opportunities in Achieving Bioequivalence for Fixed-Dose Combination Products

Fixed-dose combination (FDC) products are becoming a popular treatment option because of increased patient compliance and convenience, improved clinical effectiveness, and reduced cost to the patient, among several other reasons. A commonly applied approach for approval of a FDC product is demonstrating bioequivalence between the FDC and co-administration of individual mono-products, provided that there is adequate safety and efficacy data for co-administration of the individual agents. However, achieving bioequivalence between the FDC and individual mono-products can be very challenging, and sometimes not possible since combining multiple active ingredients, especially insoluble molecules, in a single drug product could complicate its biopharmaceutical and pharmacokinetic behavior. In this review, some of the major challenges often encountered while assessing bioequivalence during FDC development will be presented along with discussion of future opportunities to facilitate FDC development and approval.     

Use of jackknife influence profiles in bioequivalence evaluations

Generic drug product-development involves many bioavailability trials in an attempt to establish bioequivalence of the test drug product with an innovator's drug product. A major challenge for decision makers in the generic drug product-development process is to identify a successful test product based on the outcome of individual bioavailability trials, which may be misleading as a result of influential observations. The author identifies the need for a graphical diagnostic technique and then introduces such a technique, the jackknife influence profile, for the systematic scanning of influential observations. This review also describes the possible application of the technique in deriving the required reliable statistic values for bioequivalence assessment.     

Pharmacokinetics and comparative bioavailability of two vinpocetine tablet formulations in healthy volunteers by using the metabolite apovincaminic acid as pharmacokinetic parameter

The objective of this study was to evaluate the pharmacokinetics of apovincaminic acid, the main metabolite of vinpocetine ((3alpha, 16alpha) -eburnamenine-14-carboxylic acid ethyl ester, CAS 42971-09-5), and to assess the average bioequivalence of two immediate release formulations of 10 mg vinpocetine tablets in 24 healthy male volunteers. The relative bioavailability of the test (generic) product (Vimpocetina) with respect to the reference product was determined in a single dose, randomized, crossover study. A simple, rapid specific and reliable high performance liquid chromatographic method coupled with mass spectrometry detection has been developed and validated for vinpocetine and apovincaminic acid. However, only the concentrations of the metabolite could be used for bioequivalence determinations because the concentrations of the parent drug were too low to be accurately measured in the biological matrix. The compartmental analysis of the metabolite's appearance-disappearance in blood shows similarity with first-order kinetics of a drug extravascularly administered. The apparent pharmacokinetic constants were determined. The mean values for the Cmax were 49.5 (+/- 16) ng/ml for test and 51.4 (+/- 14) ng/ml for the reference product. The mean values for the AUC0-infinity were 95 (+/- 29) ng/ml x h for test and 96.9 (+/- 26) ng/ml x h for reference, respectively. The 90 % confidence intervals for test/reference mean ratios of the plasma pharmacokinetic variables Cmax and AUC0-infinity lie between 0.83-1.08 and 0.88-1.08, respectively, which is within the conventional bioequivalence range of 80-125 % (Schuirman test). The difference between Tmax of the test and reference products was statistically non-significant (Friedman test). The test product is therefore bioequivalent to the reference product with respect to the rate and extent of apovincaminic acid pharmacokinetics.     

生物等效性评价的统计分析方法

生物等效性试验用于评价试验药(T)与注册药物(R)的生物等效性，以确定其效应相当。目前生物等效性平均、群体、个体生物等效性三种。平均生物等效性只评价观察指标的平均水平，而不考虑个体间的变异；而群体生物等效性既考虑了平均水平，又考虑了个体间的变异；个体生物等效性除考虑平均水平和个体变异。还考虑个体与药物间的交互作用。本文介绍了评价三种生物等效性的统计学原理，准则，等效性界值的确定，以及应用中的注意事项。并以实例说明。