Abstract
Bioequivalence of two drug formulations is currently defined by drug regulatory authorities in terms of the mean responses following administration of the test and reference formulations (average bioequivalence). However, the various potential shortcomings of average bioequivalence are now understood, and switchability, and thus individual bioequivalence, has become a reasonable expectation when changing from one pharmaceutically equivalent drug product to another. Progress has been made in developing criteria for individual bioequivalence, and an overview and classification of most of the different approaches to the assessment of individual bioequivalence have been achieved. As a consequence of this classification, the different character of scaled and unscaled bioequivalence measures has been recognized and, in turn, this leads to the proposal, made in this paper, of using both scaled and unscaled criteria for bioequivalence assessment of different classes of drugs, depending on their within-subject variability and therapeutic range. This strategy addresses the shortcomings of average bioequivalence, and, when applied to data sets from bioequivalence studies with four-period replicate crossover designs, turns out to have some satisfactory properties. Open questions and areas for further research are discussed.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
References
Statistical Procedures for Bioequivalence Studies Using a Standard Two-Treatment Crossover Design, Guidance, Division of Bioequivalence, Office of Generic Drugs, Food and Drug Administration (revision date: 1 July 1992).
Investigation of bioavailability and bioequivalence. InThe Rules Governing Medicinal Products in the European Community, Vol. 2, Addendum No. 2, Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, Luxemburg, May 1992, pp. 149–168.
S. Hwang, P. B. Huber, M. Hesney and K. C. Kwan. Bioequivalence and interchangeability (letter).J. Pharma. Sci. 67:IV (1978).
S. Anderson and W. W. Hauck. Consideration of individual bioequivalence.J. Pharmacokin. Biopharma. 18:259–273 (1990).
G. Ekbohm and H. Melander.On Variation, Bioequivalence and Interchangeability, Report 14, Department of Statistics, Swedish University of Agricultural Science, 1990.
L. B. Sheiner. Bioequivalence revisited.Statist. Med. 11:1777–1788 (1992).
R. Schall and H. G. Luus. On population and individual bioequivalence.Statis. Med. 12:1109–1124 (1993).
L. Endrenyi. A procedure for the assessment of individual bioequivalence. In K. K. Midha and H. H. Blume (eds.),Bio-International. Bioavailability, Bioequivalence and Pharmacokinetics, Medpharm, Stuttgart, 1993, pp. 141–146.
D. J. Holder and F. Hsuan. Moment-based criteria for determining bioequivalence.Biometrika 80:835–846 (1993).
J. D. Esinhart and V. M. Chinchilli. Extension to the use of tolerance intervals for the assessment of individual bioequivalence.J. Biopharm. Statist. 4:39–52 (1994).
R. Schall. Assessment of individual and population bioequivalence using the probability that bioavailabilities are similar.Biometrics 51:615–626 (1995).
W. W. Hauck and S. Anderson. Measuring switchability and prescribability: when is average bioequivalence sufficient?J. Pharmacokin. Biopharma. 22:551–564 (1994).
R. Schall. A unified view of individual, population, and average bioequivalence. In H. H. Blume and K. K. Midha (eds.),Bio-International 2. Bioavailability, Bioequivalence and Pharmacokinetic Studies, Medpharm, Stuttgart, 1995, pp. 91–106.
W. J. Westlake. Bioavailability and bioequivalence of pharmaceutical formulations. In K. E. Peace (ed.),Pharmaceutical Statistics for Drug Development, Marcel Dekker, New York, 1988, pp. 329–352.
G. Ekbohm and H. Melander. The subject-by-formulation interaction as a criterion of interchangeability of drugs.Biometrics 45:1249–1254 (1989).
L. Z. Benet. Bioavailability and bioequivalence: Definitions and difficulties in acceptance criteria. In K. K. Midha and H. H. Blume (eds.),Bio-International. Bioavailability, Bioequivalence and Pharmacokinetics, Medpharm, Stuttgart, 1993, pp. 27–35.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Consortia
Additional information
Members of the working group: Mei-Ling Chen and Rabi Patnaik (Co-chairmen), Fred Balch, Keith Chan, Larry Lesko, Tom Ludden, Stella Machado, Donald Schuirmann, and Roger Williams.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Schall, R., Williams, R.L. & Food and Drug Administration Individual Bioequivalence Working Group. Towards a practical strategy for assessing individual bioequivalence. Journal of Pharmacokinetics and Biopharmaceutics 24, 133–149 (1996). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02353513
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02353513