Advertisement

Pharmaceutical Research

, Volume 12, Issue 6, pp 937–942 | Cite as

Without Extrapolation, Cmax/AUC is an Effective Metric in Investigations of Bioequivalence

  • Laszlo Tothfalusi
  • Laszlo Endrenyi
Note
bioequivalence absorption rate Cmax Cmax/AUC partial AUC 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

REFERENCES

  1. 1.
    F. Y. Bois, T. N. Tozer, W. W. Hauck, M. L. Chen, R. Patnaik, and R. L. Williams. Bioequivalence: performance of several measures of extent of absorption. Pharm. Res. 11:715–722 (1994).Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    F. Y. Bois, T. N. Tozer, W. W. Hauck, M. L. Chen, R. Patnaik, and R. L. Williams. Bioequivalence: performance of several measures of rate of absorption. Pharm. Res. 11:966–974 (1994).Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    A. C. Cartwright, U. Gundert-Remy, G. Rauws, I. McGilveray, T. Salmonson, S. Walters. International harmonization and consensus DIA meeting on bioavailability and bioequivalence testing requirements and standards. Drug Information J. 25:471–482 (1991).Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    L. Endrenyi, L. Tothfalusi, and J. Zha. Metrics assessing absorption rates: principles, and determination of bioequivalence in the steady state. In K. K. Midha and H. H. Blume (eds), Biolnternational '94:Bioavailability, Bioequivalence and Pharmacokinetics, 1995, in press.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    L. Endrenyi, S. Fritsch, and W. Yan. Cmax/AUC is a clearer measure than Cmax for absorption rates in investigations of bioequivalence. Int. J. Clin. Pharmacol. Ther. Toxicol. 29:394–399 (1991).Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    R. Schall, and H. E. Luus. Comparison of absorption rates in bioequivalence studies of immediate release drug formulations. Int. J. Clin. Pharmacol. Ther. Toxicol. 30:153–159 (1992).Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    L. F. Lacey, O. N. Keene, C. Duquesnoy, and A. Bye. Evaluation of different indirect measures of rate of drug absorption in comparative pharmacokinetic studies. J. Pharm. Sci. 83:212–215 (1994).Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    L. Endrenyi, and W. Yan. Variation of Cmax and Cmax/AUC in investigations of bioequivalence. Int. J. Clin Pharmacol. Ther. Toxicol. 31:184–189 (1993).Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    K. K. Midha, J. W. Hubbard, M. Rawson, and L. Gavalas. The application of partial areas in assessment of rate and extent of absorption in bioequivalence studies of conventional release products: experimental evidence. Eur. J. Pharm. Sci. 2:351–363 (1994).Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    D. J. Schuirmann. A comparison of the two one-sided tests procedure and the power approach for assessing the equivalence of average bioavailability. J. Pharmacokin. Biopharm. 15:657–680 (1987).Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    L. Endrenyi, S. Fritsch, and Y. Wei. Some kinetic and statistical considerations on the evaluation of comparative absorption rates. In I. J. McGilveray, S. V. Dighe, I. W. French, K. K. Midha and J. P. Skelly (eds), Issues in the Evaluation of Bioavailability Data, BioInternational '89, Toronto, 1990, pp. 43–48.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Publishing Corporation 1995

Authors and Affiliations

  • Laszlo Tothfalusi
    • 1
  • Laszlo Endrenyi
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Pharmacology, and Department of Preventive Medicine and BiostatisticsUniversity of TorontoToronto, Ontario

Personalised recommendations