Statistical methods to assess bioequivalence of a test and a reference formulation for modified-release products are the same as for immediate-release products, the only difference being the selection of a suitable rate characteristic. The statistical methods are reviewed with emphasis on the distribution of bioequivalence characteristics, the appropriate choice of the equivalence range, and sample size determination.
SteinijansVWHauschkeDJonkmanJHG. Controversies in bioequivalence studies. Clin Pharmacokinet. 1992;22: 247–253.
2.
HauckWWAndersonS. Types of bioequivalence and related statistical considerations. Int J Clin Pharmacol Ther Toxicol. 1992;30: 181–187.
3.
SteinijansVWTrautmannHJohnsonEBeierW. Theophylline steady-state pharmacokinetics: recent concepts and their application in chronotherapy of reactive airway diseases. Chronobiol Int. 1987;4: 331–347.
4.
SteinijansVW. Pharmacokinetic characterization of controlled-release formulations. Eur J Drug Metab Pharmacokinet. 1990;15: 173–181.
5.
SauterRSteinijansVWDilettiEBöhmASchulzHU. Presentation of results from bioequivalence studies. Int J Clin Pharmacol Ther Toxicol. 1992;30: 233–256.
6.
SteinijansVWSauterR. Food studies: acceptance criteria and statistics. In MidhaKKBlumeH., eds. Proceedings of Bio-International 92, Bad Homburg, Germany. Stuttgart, Germany: FIP-Paperback, Medpharm Scientific Publishers; in press.
7.
DilettiEHauschkeDSteinijansVW. Sample size determination for bioequivalence assessment by means of confidence intervals. Int J Clin Pharmacol Ther Toxicol. 1991;29: 1–8.
8.
Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Hearing of the Generic Drugs Advisory Committee conducted by the FDA, September 26–27, 1991. Audio transcripts by C.A.S.E.T. Associates, Fairfax, Virginia 22030, 1992.
9.
Food and Drug Administration (FDA).Guidance on statistical procedures for bioequivalence using a standard two-treatment crossover design. Informal communication by the Division of Bioequivalence, Office of Generic Drugs, Rockville, MD, 1992.
10.
Canadian Health Protection Branch (HPB).Drugs Directorate Policy: CI standard for comparative bioequivalence, 1991.
11.
Committee for Proprietary Medicinal Products (CPMP).Working Party on Efficacy of Medicinal Products. Note for guidance: investigation of bioavailability and bioequivalence. Brussels, Belgium: Commission of the European Communities; 1991.
12.
SteinijansVWHauckWWDilettiEHauschkeDAndersonS. Effect of changing the bioequivalence range from (0.80, 1.20) to (0.80, 1.25) on the power and sample size. Int J Clin Pharmacol Ther Toxicol. 1992;30: 571–575.
13.
SchuirmannDJ. A comparison of the two onesided tests procedure and the power approach for assessing the equivalence of average bioavailability. J Pharmacokin Biopharm. 1987;15: 657–680.
14.
WestlakeWJ. Bioavailability and bioequivalence of pharmaceutical formulations. In PeaceKE, ed. Biopharmaceutical statistics for drug development. New York: Marcel Dekker; 1988:329–352.
15.
HauschkeDSteinijansVWDilettiE. A distribution-free procedure for the statistical analysis of bioequivalence studies. Int J Clin Pharmacol Ther Toxicol. 1990;28: 72–80.
16.
ChowSCLiuJP. Design and analysis of bioavailability and bioequivalence studies. New York: Marcel Dekker; 1992.
17.
HauschkeDSteinijansVWDilettiEBurkeM. Sample size determination for bioequivalence assessment using a multiplicative model. J Pharmacokin Biopharm. 1992;20: 559–563.
18.
PhillipsKE. Power of the two one-sided tests procedure in bioequivalence. J Pharmacokin Biopharm. 1990;18: 137–144.
19.
LiuJPChowSC. Sample size determination for the two one-sided tests procedure in bioequivalence. J Pharmacokin Biopharm. 1992;20: 101–104.
