Search

The role of metabolites in bioequivalence studies has been a contentious issue for many years. Many papers have published recommendations for the use of metabolite data based on anecdotal evidence from the results of bioequivalence studies. Such anecdotal evidence has validity, but the arguments lack weight because the "correct" answers are always unknown. A more promising area of exploration is recommendations based on simulated bioequivalence studies for which the "correct" answers are known, given the assumptions. A review of the literature, however, reveals scant evidence of attempts to apply to real data the pharmacokinetic principles on which the recommendations from simulated studies relied. We therefore applied those principles (based on estimates of intrinsic clearance after oral administration of the parent drug) to four bioequivalence studies from our archives, in which the parent drug and at least one metabolite were monitored. In each case, the outcome is discussed in the context of the complexity of the metabolic processes that impact on the parent drug and the metabolite(s) during the first passage from the intestinal lumen to the systemic circulation. Our observation is that no simple generalization can be made such that each drug/metabolite combination must be examined individually. Our recommendation, however, is that in the interests of safety, bioequivalence decision-making should be based on the parent drug whenever possible.

Purpose. To test the hypothesis that the pharmacokinetics of d-meth- ylphenidate (d-MPH) would be altered by food ingested before administration of an immediate release formulation (dl-MPH- IR) but not when food is ingested before a slow release formulation (dl-MPH-SR). Methods. A randomized, four-phase, open label, crossover design was conducted in 24 healthy men who each received, on separate occasions, dl-MPH-IR and dl-MPH-SR taken after an overnight fast and 15 min after a standardized breakfast (20% protein, 21% fat, 59% carbohydrate). Plasma MPH levels were monitored by a validated, stereoselective, GLC-ECD method. Results. For plasma d-MPH, there were significant differences (ANOVA) between dl-MPH-IR and dl-MPH-SR in tmax, Cmax (peak exposure), and Cmax/AUC (sensitive to rate of absorption). Dl-MPH-SR on average delayed tmax from 2.3 to 3.7 h and lowered Cmax 34%. There was no significant difference between the formulations in AUC (extent of absorption). For dl-MPH-IR, food significantly increased Cmax (23%) and AUC (15%) and for dl-MPH-SR the corresponding increases were Cmax (17%) and AUC (14%). After dl-MPH-IR, food delayed average tmax from 2.0 to 2.5 but had no effect on tmax after dl-MPH-SR. There was no effect of food on Cmax/AUC (rate of absorption). Conclusions. Food caused a significant increase in extent of absorption but had no effect on rate of absorption of d-MPH after either dl-MPHIR or dl-MPH-SR.

Purpose. To establish procedures for the effective evaluation of bioequivalence (BE) for highly-variable drugs and drug products (HVD/P). Methods. 2- and 4-period crossover BE studies with 24 subjects were simulated which generally assumed within-subject coefficients of variation of 40%. The relationship between the fraction of studies in which BE was accepted (the statistical power) and the ratio of geometric means (GMR) of the two formulations was evaluated for various methods of analysis. These included, primarily, scaled average BE (ABE), the corresponding approach of expanding BE limits (BEL), and, for comparison, unscaled ABE and scaled individual BE (IBE). Results. Scaled ABE and expanding BEL showed very similar properties in both 2- and 4-period studies. They had steeper power curves than scaled IBE. Unscaled ABE had very low statistical power. The acceptance of BE by unscaled and scaled ABE and expanding BEL was almost independent of subject-by-formulation interaction and the ratio of within-subject variations of the two formulations. By contrast, the conclusions reached by scaled IBE were strongly affected by these parameters. Conclusions. Scaled ABE and expanding BEL evaluate BE effectively for HVD/P in both 2- and 4-period investigations. However, additional, useful information can be obtained from 4-period studies.