Suppr超能文献

生物等效性评估中的局部面积法:萘普生

Partial-area method in bioequivalence assessment: naproxen.

作者信息

Niazi S K, Alam S M, Ahmad S I

机构信息

University of Karachi, Karachi, Pakistan.

出版信息

Biopharm Drug Dispos. 1997 Mar;18(2):103-16. doi: 10.1002/(sici)1099-081x(199703)18:2<103::aid-bdd4>3.0.co;2-s.

Abstract

Regulatory authorities require demonstration of bioequivalence through comparisons of different pharmacokinetic parameters, the area under the plasma concentration-time curve (AUC), the maximum plasma concentration (Cmax), and the time to reach peak concentration (Tmax). The applicability and validity of regulatory requirements have been widely criticized on statistical and clinical relevance grounds. For most noncomplicated absorption models, the AUC correlates well with the extent of absorption. However, in nonlinear models of absorption, in mechanisms involving recycling of drugs, and for drugs with long half-life, the use of total AUC (from zero to infinity) can give erroneous and clinically irrelevant results since the area is mostly determined by elimination phase or by recycling. The calculation of total AUC also involves prolonged sampling, adding to the cost and risks associated with bioequivalence studies. The use of Cmax or Tmax as a measure of rate of absorption, to correlate with clinical relevance, is widely criticized on logical, technical, and statistical grounds. For drugs used on a multiple-dose basis, Cmax and Tmax evaluations become redundant since the average plateau concentration is not affected by these parameters. To resolve the drawbacks in the traditional methodology of bioequivalence evaluation, the use of partial areas in lieu of total AUC, Tmax, and Cmax is suggested. This study investigates the logic and robustness of the partial-area method in establishing bioequivalence. We conclude that the 5h AUC is a more relevant parameter to establish naproxen bioequivalence than AUCinf. We recommend against using symmetrical confidence intervals and report excellent agreement among several methods of calculating confidence intervals, probability values, and nonparametric tests. We suggest that a single-point short-term AUC is a better indicator of the bioequivalence of generic products than the total AUC, Cmax, and Tmax as required currently by the regulatory authorities.

摘要

监管机构要求通过比较不同的药代动力学参数来证明生物等效性,这些参数包括血浆浓度-时间曲线下面积(AUC)、最大血浆浓度(Cmax)以及达到峰值浓度的时间(Tmax)。监管要求的适用性和有效性在统计和临床相关性方面受到了广泛批评。对于大多数非复杂吸收模型,AUC与吸收程度密切相关。然而,在非线性吸收模型、涉及药物循环的机制以及半衰期较长的药物中,使用总AUC(从零到无穷大)可能会得出错误且与临床无关的结果,因为该面积大多由消除相或循环决定。总AUC的计算还涉及长时间采样,增加了生物等效性研究的成本和风险。将Cmax或Tmax用作吸收速率的衡量指标以与临床相关性相关联,在逻辑、技术和统计方面受到了广泛批评。对于多剂量使用的药物,Cmax和Tmax评估变得多余,因为平均稳态浓度不受这些参数影响。为了解决生物等效性评估传统方法中的缺点,建议使用部分面积代替总AUC、Tmax和Cmax。本研究调查了部分面积法在建立生物等效性方面的逻辑性和稳健性。我们得出结论,5小时AUC是建立萘普生生物等效性比AUCinf更相关的参数。我们建议不要使用对称置信区间,并报告几种计算置信区间、概率值和非参数检验方法之间的极佳一致性。我们认为,单点短期AUC比监管机构目前要求的总AUC、Cmax和Tmax更能作为仿制药生物等效性的更好指标。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验