• 응용통계연구
• /
• 제24권6호
• /
• pp.1055-1076
• /
• 2011

본 논문에서는 변이가 큰 약물(HVD)의 생동성 평가 문제와 이를 해결하기 위하여 지금까지 수행된 연구 결과들을 소개한다. 우리나라를 비롯한 세계 여러 나라에서 현재 사용하는 전통적 생동성 평가규정 중에서 HVD에 적용 가능한 방법들과 HVD 문제 해결을 주된 목적으로 고안된 방법들로 나누어 살펴본다. 특히 scaled average bioequivalence(SABE)에 대한 연구 결과들을 통계학적인 관점에서 검토하며 SABE를 이용하여 수행하는 생동성 평가 방법에 대해 알아보고 추후 연구주제 등에 대해서도 논의한다.

• 한국임상약학회지
• /
• 제19권1호
• /
• pp.50-60
• /
• 2009

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.

• Journal of Pharmaceutical Investigation
• /
• 제39권4호
• /
• pp.233-242
• /
• 2009

Bioequivalence (BE) studies provide important information in the overall set of data that ensure the availability of safe and effective medicines to patients and practitioners. Thus its determination of proper criterion for assessing BE is very important. BE is frequently expressed or measured by estimating area under the plasma concentration-time curve (AUC) and maximum concentration ($C_{max}$) that are reflective of systemic exposure. In all countries except Canada, the acceptance criteria of BE is that the 90% confidence interval of difference in the average values of logarithmic AUC and $C_{max}$ between test and reference products is within the acceptable range of log(0.8) ${\sim}$ log(1.25). In Canada, unlike other countries, point estimation instead of applying 90% confidence interval is applied to assess $C_{max}$ which is, in essence, more variable than AUC. We also compared other parts of BE guidelines which include a fed study, average BE (ABE), scaled-ABE, population BE (PBE), individual BE (IBE), dropout & withdrawal, sampling frequency & time and number of subjects. This article reviews the most recent BE guidelines of Korea, USA, Europe, Canada and Japan, highlighting the differences focused on Korean BE guidelines compared to other countries. It will help us to revise BE guideline of Korea reflecting international trends. Finally, it is strongly recommended that the extended acceptance criterion for the highly variable drug among all the considering aspects for the revision of current BE guideline has to be adopted into Korea BE guideline in the nearest future.