Are the current bioequivalence standards sufficient for the acceptance of narrow therapeutic index drugs? Utilization of a computer simulated warfarin bioequivalence model

The purpose of this computer simulation was to determine the likelihood of two bioequivalent (vs. reference) generic warfarin formulations (with varying bioavailability) passing current bioequivalence criteria against each other at varying bioavailability. Methods. A bioequivalence simulation progra...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Journal of pharmacy & pharmaceutical sciences 1999-01, Vol.2 (1), p.15-22
Main Authors: Walker, S E, Friesen, M H
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Anticoagulants - pharmacokinetics
Area Under Curve
Biological Availability
Chemistry, Pharmaceutical
Computer Simulation
Cross-Over Studies
Drug Therapy - standards
Humans
Models, Biological
Monte Carlo Method
Therapeutic Equivalency
Warfarin - pharmacokinetics
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:The purpose of this computer simulation was to determine the likelihood of two bioequivalent (vs. reference) generic warfarin formulations (with varying bioavailability) passing current bioequivalence criteria against each other at varying bioavailability. Methods. A bioequivalence simulation program generated 100 warfarin bioequivalence (BE) studies with 24 patients/study. The reference formulation (R) was assigned a bioavailability of 90%. In these simulations the first generic (G(1)) had a bioavailability that was incrementally decreased from 90%. The second generic (G(2)) had a bioavailability that was incrementally increased from 90%. The bioequivalence testing was performed initially as G(1 )vs. R, then G(2) vs. R, and finally G(2) vs. G(1). The tests were performed according to current criteria for therapeutic index drugs. 5400 BE studies with a total of 129,600 subjects and 2,462,400 sampling times were simulated. When G(1) vs. R was compared, fewer than 80% of studies passed when the relative AUC(0-t )ratios were 88% or less. When G(2) vs. R were compared, fewer than 80% of studies passed when the relative AUC(0-t )ratios were 113% or greater. When Generic 2 and Generic 1 were compared fewer than 80% of studies passed when the relative AUC(0-t) ratios deviated from the reference by 7% or more. DISCUSSION Despite limitations this simulation indicates that two bioequivalent (vs. reference) generic warfarin products may not be bioequivalent to each other. Alternative methods of assessing bioequivalence are needed when more than one generic of narrow therapeutic index drug exists on the market.
ISSN:1482-1826