Novel bioequivalence approach for narrow therapeutic index drugs.

Narrow therapeutic index drugs are defined as those drugs where small differences in dose or blood concentration may lead to serious therapeutic failures and/or adverse drug reactions that are life-threatening or result in persistent or significant disability or incapacity. The US Food and Drug Administration proposes that the bioequivalence of narrow therapeutic index drugs be determined using a scaling approach with a four-way, fully replicated, crossover design study in healthy subjects that permits the simultaneous equivalence comparison of the mean and within-subject variability of the test and reference products. The proposed bioequivalence limits for narrow therapeutic index drugs of 90.00%-111.11% would be scaled based on the within-subject variability of the reference product. The proposed study design and data analysis should provide greater assurance of therapeutic equivalence of narrow therapeutic index drug products.

Pharmacokinetic analysis of bioequivalence trials: implications for sex-related issues in clinical pharmacology and biopharmaceutics.

OBJECTIVES: To address the questions of whether women should be included in bioequivalence trials and whether dosage adjustment may be needed in women relative to men. METHODS: Sex-related analysis was conducted for 26 bioequivalence studies involving both sexes. A total of 94 data sets [47 each for the areas under the plasma concentration-time curve (AUC) and maximum concentration (Cmax)] were used. ANOVA was performed. Three statistical models were used to estimate population means and intrasubject variability between sexes, as well as sex-by-formulation interactions. Comparisons were made by use of confidence intervals, magnitude of observed differences, and statistical significance (alpha = .05). RESULTS: With some exceptions, intrasubject variabilities were similar for men and women. In about 10% of the data sets (AUC or Cmax), women had significantly higher variability. Although fewer, there were examples with higher variability in men. With a 20 percentage point difference used in the test-over-reference mean ratios between sexes as a signal of sex-by-formulation interaction, the frequency of this interaction (AUC or Cmax) is approximately 13% and approximately 35%, counting by data sets and studies, respectively. Mean sex-related differences of > or = 20% in the pharmacokinetic parameters for the reference product were observed in 39% of the data sets (AUC or Cmax). In approximately 28% of the data sets, these differences were statistically significant. The frequency was approximately 15% after body weight correction. CONCLUSIONS: In general, men and women have similar intrasubject variability. Where variability differs between sexes, there is a suggestion that higher variability in women may be more frequent. The data also suggest that a sex-based subject-by-formulation interaction can occur, although the frequency may be low. Sex-related differences in pharmacokinetics are apparent in many drugs studied. Dosage adjustment with body weight may be warranted for drugs that exhibit a steep dose-response curve. Although exploratory, the results of this study support recommendations of the 1993 Food and Drug Administration gender guideline that women not be excluded from bioequivalence trials.

An individual bioequivalence criterion: regulatory considerations.

Over the years, concerns have been raised regarding the appropriateness of using the average bioequivalence approach for evaluation of comparability between formulations. In lieu of average bioequivalence, scientists from academia, industry and regulatory agencies have spent considerable effort and time in exploring the concepts of population and individual bioequivalence, and developing the statistical methods to assess the bioavailability metrics using these approaches. Recently, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has published a preliminary draft guidance entitled 'In vivo bioequivalence studies based on population and individual bioequivalence approaches'. The concept of prescribability and switchability underscores the difference between the population and individual bioequivalence approaches. The most important consideration for individual bioequivalence, the focus of this paper, rests on the assurance that products deemed bioequivalent can be used interchangeably in the target population (switchability). In addition to the comparison of averages, the individual bioequivalence approach compares within-subject variabilities and assesses subject-by-formulation interaction. The proposed criterion represents substantial departure from the current practice and thus has resulted in extensive public discussion. In contrast to the current average bioequivalence procedure, the proposed individual bioequivalence approach offers flexible equivalence criteria based on the individual therapeutic window and variability of the reference drug product. The proposed criterion rewards manufacture of less variable drug products, allows scaling criteria for highly variable/narrow therapeutic range drugs, and promotes the use of subjects from the general population in bioequivalence studies. The FDA is currently considering various approaches for resolution of issues raised from the public debate on the subject-by-formulation interaction term, statistical methods and resource implications.

A comparison of the two one-sided tests procedure and the power approach for assessing the equivalence of average bioavailability.

The statistical test of hypothesis of no difference between the average bioavailabilities of two drug formulations, usually supplemented by an assessment of what the power of the statistical test would have been if the true averages had been inequivalent, continues to be used in the statistical analysis of bioavailability/bioequivalence studies. In the present article, this Power Approach (which in practice usually consists of testing the hypothesis of no difference at level 0.05 and requiring an estimated power of 0.80) is compared to another statistical approach, the Two One-Sided Tests Procedure, which leads to the same conclusion as the approach proposed by Westlake based on the usual (shortest) 1-2 alpha confidence interval for the true average difference. It is found that for the specific choice of alpha = 0.05 as the nominal level of the one-sided tests, the two one-sided tests procedure has uniformly superior properties to the power approach in most cases. The only cases where the power approach has superior properties when the true averages are equivalent correspond to cases where the chance of concluding equivalence with the power approach when the true averages are not equivalent exceeds 0.05. With appropriate choice of the nominal level of significance of the one-sided tests, the two one-sided tests procedure always has uniformly superior properties to the power approach. The two one-sided tests procedure is compared to the procedure proposed by Hauck and Anderson.

Dissolution profiles and specifications for dihydroergotoxine sublingual tablets using a new in vitro method.

A dissolution method (paddle method) for determining the dissolution rate profile for 0.5- and 1.0-mg dihydroergotoxine methanesulfonate sublingual tablets was developed. A fluorometric method was used for measuring drug concentration in the dissolution medium, distilled water. It was essential to filter the dissolution sample to avoid interference from undissolved excipients. When different kinds of filters were used with the dissolution samples and standards, different degrees of apparent drug binding to the filter occurred. The dissolution rate profiles for several different products were compared to the innovator's product. The in vitro method and data obtained were used to propose dissolution specifications for these sublingual products.