Matsumoto Y, Shimizu M, Ogata H
Department of Clinical Pharmacology and Toxicology, Showa Pharmaceutical University, Machida, Tokyo, Japan.
Int J Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2005 Jan;43(1):57-62. doi: 10.5414/cpp43057.
The aim of this study was to investigate whether the bioequivalence range applied world-wide, 80-120%, ensures the clinical equivalence. We investigated the relationship between variations of AUC and Cmax and those of AUEC based on a direct link model using a simulation technique.
A one-compartment pharmacokinetic model and a sigmoid Emax pharmacodynamic model were used. Regarding the influence of AUC variation on AUEC variation, the total clearance value was changed from 80% to 120%. Regarding the influence of Cmax variation on AUEC variation, Cmax was changed from 80% to 120% under a constant AUC value estimated from zero to four elimination half-lives of a drug.
In the case that Y, shape factor, is less than 1, irrespective of the ratio of EC50 to Cmax, AUEC is within the acceptable range as long as AUC and Cmax are within the acceptable range for bioequivalence, BE. In the case that Y is more than 1, and Cmax is lower than EC50, AUEC may fail within the acceptable range in the case that AUC and Cmax are within the acceptable range for BE.
These results suggest that 20% difference for BE does not always ensure the clinical equivalence for all drugs.
本研究旨在调查全球应用的生物等效性范围(80 - 120%)是否能确保临床等效性。我们使用模拟技术,基于直接联系模型研究了AUC和Cmax的变化与AUEC变化之间的关系。
采用单室药代动力学模型和S型Emax药效学模型。关于AUC变化对AUEC变化的影响,将总清除率值从80%改变至120%。关于Cmax变化对AUEC变化的影响,在根据药物的零至四个消除半衰期估算的恒定AUC值下,将Cmax从80%改变至120%。
在形状因子Y小于1的情况下,无论EC50与Cmax的比值如何,只要AUC和Cmax在生物等效性(BE)的可接受范围内,AUEC就在可接受范围内。在Y大于1且Cmax低于EC50的情况下,若AUC和Cmax在BE的可接受范围内,AUEC可能不在可接受范围内。
这些结果表明,BE的20%差异并不总能确保所有药物的临床等效性。