Bioequivalence Approaches for Highly Variable Drugs: Issue and Solution

개체 변이가 큰 약물 (highly variable drug)의 생물학적동등성 시험을 위한 실험설계 및 평가방법

  • 백인환 (충남대학교 약학대학 임상약학 연구실) ;
  • 성수현 (충남대학교 약학대학 임상약학 연구실) ;
  • 권광일 (충남대학교 약학대학 임상약학 연구실)
  • Received : 2009.05.15
  • Accepted : 2009.06.15
  • Published : 2009.06.30

Abstract

Highly variable drugs (within-subject variability greater than 30%) have been difficult to meet current regulatory acceptance criteria using a reasonable number of study subjects. In this study, we reviewed previous studies presenting alternative approaches for bioequivalence evaluation of highly variable drugs, and focused on an approach for widening the bioequivalence acceptance limits using within-subject variability. We discussed the suggested five solutions for highly variable drug including the deletion of $C_{max}$ of the bioequivalence criteria, direct expansion of bioequivalence limit, multiple dose studies in steady state, bioequivalence assessment on the metabolite, add-on study, and widening the bioequivalence acceptance limits based on reference variability. The methods for widening of bioequivalence limits based on reference variability are scaled average bioequivalence containing within-subject variability on reference drug (${\sigma}_{WR}$), population bioequivalence derived from total variability on reference drug (${\sigma}_{TR}$) and test drug (${\sigma}_{TT}$), and individual bioequivalence derived from subject by formulation interaction variability (${\sigma}_D$) and within subject variability on reference drug (${\sigma}_{WR}$) and test drug (${\sigma}_{TR}$). To apply these methods, the switching variability (${\sigma}_0$) will have to be set by the regulatory authorities. The proposals of bioequivalence evaluation approach for the highly variable in Korea are presented for both of new drug and reevaluation drug.

Keywords

References

  1. 식품의약품안전청. 생물학적동등성시험 기준 (고시 제 2008-22호). 서울: 식품의약품안전청, 2008
  2. Hauschke D, Steinijans VW, Diletti E. A distribution-free procedure for the statistical analysis of bioequivalence studies. Int J Clin Pharmacol Ther Toxicol 1990; 28: 72- 78.
  3. Schulz HU, Steinijans VW. Striving for standards in bioequivalence assessment: a review. Int J Clin Pharmacol Ther Toxicol 1992; 30: S1-S6.
  4. The National Institute of Health Sciences (NIHS). Guideline for Bioequivalence Studies of Generic Product. Tokyo: The National Institute of Health Sciences (NIHS), 1997
  5. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Guidance for industry: bioavailability and bioequivalence studies for orally administered drug products- general considerations. Rockville: The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), 2003
  6. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Guidance for industry: statistical Approaches Establishing Bioequivalence. Rockville: The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), 2001
  7. The Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use (CHMP). Guidance on the Investigation of Bioequivalence. Rondon: The European Medicines Agency (EMEA), 2008
  8. Health Canada. Guidance for Industry, Conduct and Analysis of Bioavailability and Bioequivalence Studies- Part A. Minister of Public Works and Government Services Canada, 1992
  9. http://bebac.at/Guidelines.htm
  10. http://www.fda.gov/CDER/regulatory/default.htm
  11. http://www.emea.europa.eu/index/indexh1.htm
  12. http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/index-eng.php
  13. Blume HH, Midha KK. Bio-international '92 Conference on Bioavailability, Bioequivalence and Pharmacokinetic Studies. Pharm Res 1993; 10: 1806-1811. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1018998803920
  14. Haidar SH, Davit B, Chen ML, et al. Bioequivalence approaches for highly variable drugs and drugs products. Pharm Res 2008; 25(1): 237-241. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11095-007-9434-x
  15. Tothfalusi L, Endrenyi L, Midha KK, et al. Evaluation of the bioequivalence of highly-variable drugs and drug products. Pharm Res 2001; 18(6): 728-733. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1011015924429
  16. Boddy AW, Snikeri FC, Kringle RO, et al. An approach for widening the bioequivalence acceptance limits in the case of highly variable drugs. Pharm Res 1995; 12: 1865-1868. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1016219317744
  17. http://www.aapspharmaceutica.com/
  18. Health Canada, Therapeutic Products Directorate (TPD). Discussion paper on "Bioequivalence requirements - highly variable drugs and highly variable drug products: issues and options". Expert Advisory Committee on Bioavailability and Bioequivalence (EAC-BB) Meeting, June 26-27, 2003.
  19. Buice RG, Subramanian VS, Duchin KL, et al. Bioequivalence of a highly variable drug: an experience with nadolol. Pharm Res 1996; 13(7): 1109-1115. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1016031313065
  20. Davit BM, Conner DP, Fabian-Fritsch B, et al. Highly Variable Drugs: Observations from Bioequivalence Data Submitted to the FDA for New Generic Drug Applications, The AAPS Journal 2008; 10(1): 148-156. https://doi.org/10.1208/s12248-008-9015-x
  21. Salmon S. Statistical design and evaluation of bioequivalence studies average bioequivalence. WHO Prequalification program workshop, Kiev, Ukraine, June 25- 27, 2007
  22. Tothfalusi L, Endrenyi L. Evaluation of some properties of individual bioequivalence (IBE) from replicate-design studies. Int J Clin Pharmacol Ther 2001; 39(4): 162-166 https://doi.org/10.5414/CPP39162
  23. Welling PG, Tse FL. Factors contributing to variability in drug pharmacokinetics. I. Absorption. J Clin Hosp Pharm 1984; 9(3): 163-179
  24. Routledge PA. Factors contributing to variability in drug pharmacokinetics. II. Drug distribution. J Clin Hosp Pharm 1985; 10(1): 15-23
  25. Jack DB. Factors contributing to variability in drug pharmacokinetics. III. Metabolism. J Clin Hosp Pharm 1985; 10(1) 25-43
  26. Regardh CG. Factors contributing to variability in drug pharmacokinetics. IV. Renal excretion. J Clin Hosp Pharm 1985; 10(4): 337-349
  27. Midha KK, Shah VP, Singh GJ, et al. Conference report: Bio-International 2005. J Pharm Sci 2007; 96(4): 747-754 https://doi.org/10.1002/jps.20786
  28. Patnaik R. Highly Variable Drugs and Drug Products: A Rationale for Solution of a Persistent Problem. In: AAPS Workshop on BE, BCS and Beyond, Bethesda, USA, May 21, 2007
  29. Schuirmann DJ. 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: 657-680 https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01068419
  30. Patterson SD, Zariffa NM, Montague TH, et al. Nontraditional study designs to demonstrate average bioequivalence for highly variable drug products. Eur J Clin Pharmacol 2001; 57(9): 663-670. https://doi.org/10.1007/s002280100371
  31. Garcia-Arieta A. Highly Variable Drugs. In; Understanding Bioequivalence of Generic Drugs, A Worldwide Review, Monte Carlo, June 18, 2006
  32. Davit BM, highly variable drugs-bioequivalence issues: FDA proposal under consideration. In; Advisory Committee for Pharmaceutical Science, October 6, 2006 http:// www.fda.gov/ ohrms/dockets/ac/06/slides/2006-4241s2_5.htm
  33. Haidar SH, Evaluation of a scaling approach for highly variable drugs. In: Advisory Committee for Pharmaceutical Science, Rockville, USA, October 6, 2006
  34. Paul Fackler, Bioequivalence for highly variable drugs: session III. American Association of Pharmaceutical Scientists, San Diego, USA, November 11-15, 2007
  35. Committee for medicinal products for human use (CHMP), 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. European Medicines Agency (EMEA), London, April 27, 2006
  36. Hauck WW, Parekh A, Lesko LJ, et al. 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) :350-355 https://doi.org/10.5414/CPP39350
  37. Tsang YC, Pop R, Gordon P, et al. High variability in drug pharmacokinetics complicates determination of bioequivalence: experience with verapamil. Pharm Res 1996; 13(6):846-850 https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1016040825844
  38. Midha KK, Rawson MJ, Hubbard JW. The bioequivalence of highly variable drugs and drug products. Int J Clin Pharmacol Ther 2005; 43(10) :485-98 https://doi.org/10.5414/CPP43485
  39. Haidar SH, Davit B, Chen ML, et al. Bioequivalence approaches for highly variable drugs and drug products. Pharm Res 2008; 25(1): 237-41 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11095-007-9434-x
  40. Belisle M, Highly Variable Drugs and Drug Products (HVD/HVDP) Overview. SFBC Anapharm Symposium, Newark, April 22, 2004
  41. el-Tahtawy AA, Tozer TN, Harrison F, et al. Evaluation of bioequivalence of highly variable drugs using clinical trial simulations. II: Comparison of single and multiple-dose trials using AUC and Cmax. Pharm Res. 1998; 15(1): 98-104. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1011961006297
  42. Blume H, Zhong D, Elze M. Advantages of a steady-state crossover design in assessment of bioequivalence of highly variable drugs: propafenone. European journal of pharmaceutical sciences 1994; 2(5): 385-393 https://doi.org/10.1016/0928-0987(94)00068-9
  43. Jackson AJ. The role of metabolites in bioequivalency assessment. III. Highly variable drugs with linear kinetics and first-pass effect. Pharm Res 2000; 17(11): 1432-1436. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1007581016352
  44. Lalonde RL, Lessard D, Gaudreault J. Population pharmacokinetics of terfenadine. Pharm Res 1996; 13(6): 832-838. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1016036624935
  45. Patterson SD, Zariffa NM, Montague TH, et al. Nontraditional study designs to demonstrate average bioequivalence for highly variable drug products. Eur J Clin Pharmacol 2001; 57(9): 663-670. https://doi.org/10.1007/s002280100371
  46. Karalis V, Symillides M, Macheras P. Novel scaled average bioequivalence limits based on GMR and variability considerations. Pharm Res 2004; 21(10): 1933-1942 https://doi.org/10.1023/B:PHAM.0000045249.83899.ae
  47. Tothfalusi, L ; Endrenyi, L ; Midha, K K. Scaling or wider bioequivalence limits for highly variable drugs and for the special case of Cmax. International journal of clinical pharmacology and therapeutics 2003; 41(5): 217-225 https://doi.org/10.5414/CPP41217
  48. Pan G, Wang Y. Average bioequivalence evaluation: general methods for pilot trials. J Biopharm Stat. 2006; 16(2): 207-225 https://doi.org/10.1080/10543400500508887
  49. Stavchansky S, Interchangeability of Multisource Drug Products Containing Highly Variable Drugs. Kiev, Ukraine, June 25-27, 2007
  50. Tothfalusi, Laszlo ; Endrenyi, Laszlo, Limits for the Scaled Average Bioequivalence of Highly Variable Drugs and Drug Products. Pharm Res, 2003; 20(3): 382-389 https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1022695819135
  51. Wijnand HP. Assessment of average, population and individual bioequivalence in two- and four-period crossover studies. Comput Methods Programs Biomed 2003; 70(1): 21-35 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0169-2607(02)00019-6
  52. Nakai K, Fujita M, Tomita M. Comparison of average and population bioequivalence approach. Int J Clin Pharmacol Ther 2002; 40(9): 431-438 https://doi.org/10.5414/CPP40431
  53. Chervoneva I, Hyslop T, Hauck WW. A multivariate test for population bioequivalence. Stat Med 2007; 26(6): 1208-1223. https://doi.org/10.1002/sim.2605
  54. Canafax DM, Irish WD, Moran HB, et al. An individual bioequivalence approach to compare the intrasubject variability of two ciclosporin formulations, SangCya and Neoral. Pharmacology 1999; 59(2): 78-88 https://doi.org/10.1159/000028307
  55. Endrenyi L, Tothfalusi L. Subject-by-formulation interaction in determinations of individual bioequivalence: bias and prevalence. Pharm Res 1999; 16(2): 186-190 https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1018899504711
  56. Chow SC, Shao J, Wang H. Individual bioequivalence testing under 2x3 designs. Stat Med 2002; 21(5): 629-648 https://doi.org/10.1002/sim.1056
  57. Potvin D, DiLiberti CE, Hauck WW, et al. Sequential design approaches for bioequivalence studies with crossover designs. Pharm Stat 2008; 7(4): 245-262 https://doi.org/10.1002/pst.294
  58. Mathew T, Paul G, A p-value for testing the equivalence of the variances of a bivariate normal distribution. J Stat Plan Inference 2008 ;138(12): 3982-3992 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jspi.2008.02.005
  59. Sunkara G, Reynolds CV, Pommier F, et al. Evaluation of a pharmacokinetic interaction between valsartan and simvastatin in healthy subjects. Curr Med Res Opin 2007; 23(3): 631-640 https://doi.org/10.1185/030079906X167471