International harmonization of regulatory requirements for average bioequivalence has made major progress during the last years, particularly with regard to the bioequivalence range and statistical analysis. The multiplicative model and hence the logarithmic transformation of the primary extent and rate characteristics AUC and Cmax and—consistent with this—the bioequivalence range of (0.80, 1.25) are now accepted by all major health authorities including the European Committee for Proprietary Medicinal Products (CPMP), the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA), and the Canadian Health Protection Branch (HPB). Such a consensus is missing for the concept of individual bioequivalence. The selection of an appropriate methodology and suitable operative procedures for assessing individual bioequivalence must be addressed in the future by biostatisticians, biopharmaceutical scientists, and regulatory authorities.
Nordic Council on Medicines.Bioavailability studies in man, Nordic Guidelines, NLN Publication No. 18, Nordiska Läkemedeisnämnden, Uppsala; 1987.
2.
Food and Drug Administration. Report by the bioequivalence task force on recommendation from the bioequivalence hearing conducted on Sept. 29-Oct. 1, 1986, by the FDA; 1988.
3.
Food and Drug Administration.Guidance on statistical procedures for bioequivalence studies using a standard two-treatment crossover design, informal communication by the Division of Bioequivalence, Office of Generic Drugs, Rockville, MD; 1992.
4.
Canadian Health Protection Branch. Report on bioavailability of oral dosage formulations of drugs used for systemic effects, A. Drugs with uncomplicated characteristics; 1990.
5.
Canadian Health Protection Branch. Report on bioavailability of oral dosage formulations of drugs used for systemic effects, B. Modified release dosage forms; 1990.
6.
Canadian Health Protection Branch.Drugs Directorate Policy: CI standard for comparative bioavailability; 1991.
7.
Committee for Proprietary Medicinal Products.Working Party on Efficacy of Medicinal Products. Note for guidance: Investigation of bioavailability and bioequivalence; 1991.
8.
Gundert-RemyUMüllerH.Oral controlled release products—therapeutic and biopharmaceutic assessment. Paperback APV Band 22, Wissenschaftliche Verlagsgesellschaft mbH: Stuttgart; 1989.
9.
MidhaKKBlumeH.Proceedings of Bio-International 92 Bad Homburg, Germany. FIP-Paperback, Medpharm Scientific Publishers, Stuttgart; 1993.
10.
McGilverayIJMidhaKKSkellyJPDigheSDoluisioJTFrenchIWKarimABurfordR.Consensus report from 'Bio International ′89: Issues in the evaluation of bioavailability data. J Pharm Sci.1990;79:945–946.
11.
SkellyJPAmidonGLBarrWHBenetLZCarterJERobinsonJRShahVPYacobiA.Report of the workshop on in vitro and in vivo testing and correlation for oral controlled/modified-release dosage forms. J Pharm Sci.1990;79: 849–854.
12.
CartwrightACGundert-RemyURauwsGMcGilverayISalmonsonTWaltersS.International harmonization and consensus DIA meeting on bioavailability and bioequivalence testing requirements and standards. Drug Inf J.1991;25:471–482.
13.
AndersonSHauckWW. Consideration of individual bioequivalence. J Pharmacokin Biopharm.1990;18:259–273.
14.
Food and Drug Administration, Division of Bio-pharmaceutics. Bioavailability protocol guideline for ANDA and NDA Submission; 1977.
15.
SteinijansVWSauterRElzeMHauschkeD.Metrics to characterize concentration time profiles in single- and multiple-dose bioequivalence studies. Drug Inf J.1995;29.
16.
SteinijansVWSauterRJonkmanJHGSchulzH-UStriekerHBlumeH.Bioequivalence studies: Single vs multiple dose. Int J Clin Pharmacol Ther Toxicol.1989;27:261–266.
17.
OosterhuisBJonkmanJHG. Single dose versus multiple dose studies in the evaluation and validation of controlled/modified release formulations. In: BlumeHGundert-RemyU.MüllerH. Controlled/Modified Release Products.Wissenschaftliche Verlagsgesellschaft, Stuttgart; 1991: 19–29.
BlumeHSiewertMSteinijansVWStrickerH.Bioáquivalenz von per os applizierten Retard-Arzneimitteln: Konzeption der Studien und Entscheidung über Austauschbarkeit. Pharm Ind.1989;51:1025–1033.
SkellyJP. Guidance for conducting studies on theophylline controlled products. Food and Drug Administration, Division of Biopharmaceuticals (0928X-4/84); 1984.
22.
WestlakeWJ. Bioavailability and bioequivalence of pharmaceutical formulations. In: PeaceKE, ed. Biopharmaceutical statistics for drug development.New York: Marcel Dekker; 1988:329–352.
23.
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.
24.
HauschkeDSteinijansVWDilettiE.A distribution-free procedure for the statistical analysis of bioequivalence studies. Int J Clin Pharmacol Ther Toxicol.1990;28:72–78.
25.
ChowSCLiuJP. Design and analysis of bioavailability and bioequivalence studies. New York: Marcel Dekker; 1992.
26.
LiuJPChowSC. On assessment of bioequivalence in variability of bioavailability. Comm Stat- Theory Meth.1992;21:2591–2607.
27.
BauerPBauerMM. Testing equivalence simultaneously for location and dispersion of two normally distributed populations. Biometrical J.1994;36:643–660.
28.
PhillipsKE. Power of the two one-sided tests procedure in bioequivalence. J Pharmacokin Biopharm.1990;18:137–144.
29.
DilettiEHauschkeDSteinijansVW. Sample size determination for bioequivalence assessment by means of confidence intervals. Int J Clin Pharmacol Ther Toxicol.1991;29:1–8.
30.
DilettiEHauschkeDSteinijansVW. Sample size determination: Extended tables for the multiplicative model and bioequivalence ranges of 0.9 to 1.11 and 0.7 to 1.43. Int J Clin Pharmacol Ther Toxicol.1992;30:287–290.
31.
LiuJPChowSC. Sample size determination for the two one-sided tests procedure in bioequivalence. J Pharmacokin Biopharm.1992;20:101–104.
32.
HauschkeDSteinijansVWDilettiEBurkeM.Sample size determination for bioequivalence assessment using a multiplicative model. J Pharmacokin Biopharm.1992;20;559–563.
33.
SchallRLuusHG. On population and individual bioequivalence. Stat Med.1993;12:1109–1124.
34.
SheinerLB. Bioequivalence revisited. Stat Med.1992;11:1777–1788.
35.
HolderDJHsuanF.Moment-based criteria for determining bioequivalence. Biometrika.1993;80:835–846.
36.
SchallR.A unified view of individual, population and average bioequivalence. Proceedings of Bio-International ′94. Munich, 1994.
37.
EkbohmGMelanderH.On variation, bioequivalence and interchangeability. Report 14, Department of Statistics, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences; 1990.
38.
EndrenyiL.A procedure for the assessment of individual bioequivalence. In MidhaKKBlumeHH (eds.). Proceedings of Bio-International 92. Bad Homburg, Germany; FIP-Paperback; Medpharm Scientific Publishers: Stuttgart; 1993:141–146.
39.
SchallR.Assessment of individual and population bioequivalence using the probability that bioavailabilities are similar. Biometrics.1994:50.
