Abstract
Background: The concept of evaluating bioequivalence has changed over a period of time. Currently, the Average Bioequivalence approach (ABE) is the gold standard tool for the evaluation of generics. Of late, many debates had arisen about employing ABE approach for the appraisal of all drug categories. This review aims to examine the limitations of ABE approach and the significances of Population Bioequivalence (PBE) and Individual Bioequivalence (IBE) approach, current regulatory thinking for assessing different categories of the drug, whether they are adequately assessed, and the evaluation is in the right direction.
Methods: We carried out an organized search of bibliographic databases for peer-reviewed research literatures, regulatory recommendations, guidance documents using a focused review question and eligibility criteria. The standard tools were used to appraise the quality of retrieved documents and to make sure the authenticity of the data.
Results: In total 73 references were used in the review, the majority of the references (guidance documents) were from the different regulatory agencies and product-specific guidance. There were 29 product-specific guidance from USFDA and EMA. The limitations of the ABE approach were discussed in detail along with the significances of Population Bioequivalence (PBE) approach and Individual Bioequivalence (IBE) approaches.
Conclusion: It is apparent from the review that IBE approach is a precise method for evaluating the drugs as it answers drug interchangeability (prescribability and switchability). IBE approach is followed by PBE approach and ABE approach for the evaluation of different categories of drugs in terms of precision.
Keywords: Critical dose drugs, average bioequivalence, individual bioequivalence, population bioequivalence, drug interchangeability, prescribability, switchability.
Graphical Abstract
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S1086-5802(16)31327-4] [PMID: 11765111]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/00912700122010708] [PMID: 11504268]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0928-0987(97)10021-5] [PMID: 9795081]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/A:1022695819135] [PMID: 12669957]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0169-2607(02)00019-6] [PMID: 12468124]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/bdd.422] [PMID: 15495146]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/00007611-200194010-00003] [PMID: 11213935]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0169-2607(02)00019-6] [PMID: 12468124]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0928-0987(97)10021-5] [PMID: 9795081]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/00912700122010708] [PMID: 11504268]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0149-2918(03)80340-5] [PMID: 14693311]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S1086-5802(16)31327-4] [PMID: 11765111]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/j.1552-4604.2000.tb05980.x] [PMID: 10868305]