| Abstract: | Since the early 1990s, average bioequivalence (ABE) studies have served as the international regulatory standard for demonstrating that two formulations of drug product will provide the same therapeutic benefit and safety profile when used in the marketplace. Population (PBE) and individual (IBE) bioequivalence have been the subject of intense international debate since methods for their assessment were proposed in the late 1980s and since their use was proposed in United States Food and Drug Administration guidance in 1997. Guidance has since been proposed and finalized by the Food and Drug Administration for the implementation of such techniques in the pioneer and generic pharmaceutical industries. The current guidance calls for the use of replicate design and of cross‐over studies (cross‐overs with sequences TRTR, RTRT, where T is the test and R is the reference formulation) for selected drug products, and proposes restricted maximum likelihood and method‐of‐moments techniques for parameter estimation. In general, marketplace access will be granted if the products demonstrate ABE based on a restricted maximum likelihood model. Study sponsors have the option of using PBE or IBE if the use of these criteria can be justified to the regulatory authority. Novel and previously proposed SAS®‐based approaches to the modelling of pharmacokinetic data from replicate design studies will be summarized. Restricted maximum likelihood and method‐of‐moments modelling results are compared and contrasted based on the analysis of data available from previously performed replicate design studies, and practical issues involved in the application of replicate designs to demonstrate ABE are characterized. It is concluded that replicate designs may be used effectively to demonstrate ABE for highly variable drug products. Statisticians should exercise caution in the choice of modelling procedure. Copyright © 2002 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. |
