Bioequivalence of Highly Variable Drugs: a Comparison of the Newly Proposed Regulatory Approaches by FDA and EMA

Overview

Journal Pharm Res

Specialties Pharmacology
Pharmacy

Date 2011 Dec 29

PMID 22203326

Citations 21

Authors

Vangelis Karalis

Mira Symillides

Panos Macheras

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Purpose: To explore the comparative performance of the recently proposed bioequivalence (BE) approaches, FDA(s) and EMA(s), by the FDA working group on highly variable drugs and the EMA, respectively; to compare the impact of the GMR-constraint on the two approaches; and to provide representative plots of % BE acceptance as a function of geometric mean ratio, sample size and variability.

Methods: Simulated BE studies and extreme GMR versus CV plots were used. Three sequence, three period crossover studies with two treatments were simulated using four levels of within-subject variability.

Results: The FDA(s) and EMA(s) approaches were identical when variability was <30%. In all other cases, the FDA(s) method was more permissive than EMA(s). The major discrepancy was observed for variability values >50%. The GMR-constraint was necessary for FDA(s), especially for drugs with high variabilities. For EMA(s), the GMR-constraint only became effective when sample size was large and variability was close to 50%.

Conclusions: A significant discrepancy in the performances of FDA(s) and EMA(s) was observed for high variability values. The GMR-constraint was essential for FDA(s), but it was of minor importance in case of the EMA(s).

Citing Articles

Considerations of sex in bioequivalence assessments: does sex affect pharmacokinetic variability between evaluation formulations?.

Jang J, Jeong S Eur J Clin Pharmacol. 2025; .

PMID: 40000474 DOI: 10.1007/s00228-025-03813-x.

Optimization of the proportions of advantageous components in the hypolipidemic "bioequivalent substance system" of Jiang-Zhi-Ning and its mechanism of action.

Li Y, Zhang Y, Zhang Y, Lin T, Gao Y, Cai Y Pharm Biol. 2023; 61(1):1374-1386.

PMID: 37655554 PMC: 10478595. DOI: 10.1080/13880209.2023.2243999.

Discovery of Hepatotoxic Equivalent Markers and Mechanism of Thunb. by Metabolomics Coupled with Molecular Docking.

Zhang Y, Liu L, Feng M, Wu H, Dai Y, Jia Z Molecules. 2023; 28(1).

PMID: 36615221 PMC: 9822512. DOI: 10.3390/molecules28010025.

Population Pharmacokinetic Modelling and Simulation to Determine the Optimal Dose of Nanoparticulated Sorafenib to the Reference Sorafenib.

Huh K, Hwang S, Park S, Lim H, Jin M, Oh J Pharmaceutics. 2021; 13(5).

PMID: 33925058 PMC: 8145937. DOI: 10.3390/pharmaceutics13050629.

Pharmacokinetic comparison between a fixed-dose combination of fimasartan/amlodipine/hydrochlorothiazide 60/10/25 mg and a corresponding loose combination of fimasartan/amlodipine 60/25 mg and hydrochlorothiazide 25 mg in healthy subjects.

Jung J, Lee S, Oh J, Lee S, Jang I, Lee D Transl Clin Pharmacol. 2021; 29(1):53-64.

PMID: 33855001 PMC: 8020363. DOI: 10.12793/tcp.2021.29.e5.

References

Schall R, Williams R . Towards a practical strategy for assessing individual bioequivalence. Food and Drug Administration Individual Bioequivalence Working Group. J Pharmacokinet Biopharm. 1996; 24(1):133-49. DOI: 10.1007/BF02353513. View

Karalis V, Symillides M, Macheras P . On the leveling-off properties of the new bioequivalence limits for highly variable drugs of the EMA guideline. Eur J Pharm Sci. 2011; 44(4):497-505. DOI: 10.1016/j.ejps.2011.09.008. View

Morais J, Lobato M . The new European Medicines Agency guideline on the investigation of bioequivalence. Basic Clin Pharmacol Toxicol. 2010; 106(3):221-5. DOI: 10.1111/j.1742-7843.2009.00518.x. View

Van Peer A . Variability and impact on design of bioequivalence studies. Basic Clin Pharmacol Toxicol. 2010; 106(3):146-53. DOI: 10.1111/j.1742-7843.2009.00485.x. View

Endrenyi L, Tothfalusi L . Regulatory and study conditions for the determination of bioequivalence of highly variable drugs. J Pharm Pharm Sci. 2009; 12(1):138-49. DOI: 10.18433/j3zw2c. View

Patnaik R, Lesko L, Chen M, Williams R . Individual bioequivalence. New concepts in the statistical assessment of bioequivalence metrics. FDA Individual Bioequivalence Working Group. Clin Pharmacokinet. 1997; 33(1):1-6. DOI: 10.2165/00003088-199733010-00001. View

Endrenyi L, Amidon G, Midha K, Skelly J . Individual bioequivalence: attractive in principle, difficult in practice. Pharm Res. 1998; 15(9):1321-5. DOI: 10.1023/a:1011972732530. View

Schuirmann D . A comparison of the two one-sided tests procedure and the power approach for assessing the equivalence of average bioavailability. J Pharmacokinet Biopharm. 1987; 15(6):657-80. DOI: 10.1007/BF01068419. View

Mitchell D, Barr W, Eusebio R, STEVENS K, Duke F, Russell D . Risedronate pharmacokinetics and intra- and inter-subject variability upon single-dose intravenous and oral administration. Pharm Res. 2001; 18(2):166-70. DOI: 10.1023/a:1011024200280. View

10.

Midha K, Rawson M, Hubbard J . Individual and average bioequivalence of highly variable drugs and drug products. J Pharm Sci. 1997; 86(11):1193-7. DOI: 10.1021/js960516+. View

11.

Polli J, Cook J, Davit B, Dickinson P, Argenti D, Barbour N . Summary workshop report: Facilitating oral product development and reducing regulatory burden through novel approaches to assess bioavailability/bioequivalence. AAPS J. 2012; 14(3):627-38. PMC: 3385831. DOI: 10.1208/s12248-012-9376-z. View

12.

Karalis V, Macheras P, Symillides M . Geometric mean ratio-dependent scaled bioequivalence limits with leveling-off properties. Eur J Pharm Sci. 2005; 26(1):54-61. DOI: 10.1016/j.ejps.2005.04.019. View

13.

Haidar S, Makhlouf F, Schuirmann D, Hyslop T, Davit B, Conner D . Evaluation of a scaling approach for the bioequivalence of highly variable drugs. AAPS J. 2008; 10(3):450-4. PMC: 2761698. DOI: 10.1208/s12248-008-9053-4. View

14.

Anderson S, Hauck W . Consideration of individual bioequivalence. J Pharmacokinet Biopharm. 1990; 18(3):259-73. DOI: 10.1007/BF01062202. View

15.

Midha K, Rawson M, Hubbard J . The bioequivalence of highly variable drugs and drug products. Int J Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2005; 43(10):485-98. DOI: 10.5414/cpp43485. View

16.

Tothfalusi L, Endrenyi L, Midha K . Scaling or wider bioequivalence limits for highly variable drugs and for the special case of C(max). Int J Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2003; 41(5):217-25. DOI: 10.5414/cpp41217. View

17.

Midha K, Rawson M, Hubbard J . Bioequivalence: switchability and scaling. Eur J Pharm Sci. 1998; 6(2):87-91. DOI: 10.1016/s0928-0987(97)00080-8. View

18.

Haidar S, Davit B, Chen M, Conner D, Lee L, Li Q . Bioequivalence approaches for highly variable drugs and drug products. Pharm Res. 2007; 25(1):237-41. DOI: 10.1007/s11095-007-9434-x. View

19.

Kytariolos J, Karalis V, Macheras P, Symillides M . Novel scaled bioequivalence limits with leveling-off properties. Pharm Res. 2006; 23(11):2657-64. DOI: 10.1007/s11095-006-9107-1. View

20.

Hauck W, Parekh A, Lesko L, Chen M, Williams R . Limits of 80%-125% for AUC and 70%-143% for Cmax. What is the impact on bioequivalence studies?. Int J Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2001; 39(8):350-5. DOI: 10.5414/cpp39350. View