Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Metabolites and Bioequivalence

Past and Present

  • Review Article
  • Published:
Clinical Pharmacokinetics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Although it is widely recognised that measurement of metabolite concentrations is crucial to understanding the clinical pharmacology characteristics of a new molecular entity, a clear consensus on the role of metabolites in the assessment of bioequivalence has never been achieved within the scientific community. However, a regulatory policy for the role of metabolites in bioavailability and bioequivalence has been established by the US FDA. One school of thought believes that the parent drug alone is sensitive to picking up formulation differences, whereas another school of thought believes that establishing bioequivalence criteria on all the species that contribute to safety and efficacy is the only way to ensure the switchability of two products.

In this paper, a brief review of the pharmacokinetics of metabolites under different scenarios is presented and the history of the role of metabolites in the assessment of bioequivalence is summarised. Relevant examples from the literature illustrating conflicting opinions on the need for the measurement of metabolites in bioequivalence studies are given. Cases from the literature in which the parent drug is able to meet the 90% confidence intervals while the metabolite(s) fail to do so, and vice versa, are presented to illustrate the difficulty in choosing the pertinent entity to measure. The relevant current US FDA policy and guidelines related to bioavailability and bioequivalence are discussed and contrasted with the rules and regulations applicable in Canada and Europe.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Food and Drug Administration. Guidance for in-vivo bioequivalence study and in-vitro dissolution testing for allopurinol tablets. Rockville (MD): Food and Drug Administration, 1985

    Google Scholar 

  2. Food and Drug Administration. Guidance for a protocol for conducting in-vivo bioequivalence study and in-vitro dissolution testing for immediate-release flurazepam hydrochloride capsules. Rockville (MD): Food and Drug Administration, 1985

    Google Scholar 

  3. Food and Drug Administration. Guidance for a protocol to conduct a bioequivalence study on loxapine succinate capsules. Rockville (MD): Food and Drug Administration, 1987

    Google Scholar 

  4. Food and Drug Administration. Guidance for industry: bioavailability and bioequivalence studies for orally administered drug products — general considerations. Rockville (MD): Food and Drug Administration, 2000 Oct 27

    Google Scholar 

  5. Chen ML, Jackson AJ. The role of metabolites in bioequivalency assessment: I. linear pharmacokinetics without first-pass effect. Pharm Res 1991; 8: 25–32

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Chen ML, Shah V, Patnaik R, et al. Bioavailability and bioequivalence: an FDA regulatory overview. Pharm Res 2001; 18: 1645–50

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Holford N. Pharmacodynamics and bioequivalence. In: Jackson AJ, editor. Generics and bioequivalence. Boca Raton (FL): CRC Press, 1994: 87–100

    Google Scholar 

  8. Guitton C, Kinowski JM, Abbar M, et al. Clozapine and metabolite concentrations during treatment of patients with chronic schizophrenia. J Clin Pharmacol 1999 Jul; 39(7): 721–8

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. He G, Massarella J, Ward P. Clinical pharmacokinetics of the prodrug oseltamivir and its active metabolite Ro 64-0802. Clin Pharmacokinet 1999 Dec; 37(6): 471–84

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Hossain M, Jhee SS, et al. Estimation of the absolute bioavailability of rivastigmine in patients with mild to moderate dementia of the Alzheimer’s type. Clin Pharmacokinet 2002; 41(3): 225–34

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. O’Reilly RA, Aggeler PM, Leong LS. Studies on the coumarin anticoagulant drugs: a comparison of the pharmacodynamics of dicumarol and warfarin in man. Thromb Diath Haemorrh 1964; 11: 1–22

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Midha KK, Hubbard JW, McKay G, et al. The role of metabolites in a bioequivalence study II: amoxapine, 7-hydroxyamoxapine, and 8-hydroxyamoxapine. Int J Clin Pharmacol Ther 1999; 37(9): 428–38

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Pratt CM, Mason J, Russell T, et al. Cardiovascular safety of fexofenadine HCl. Am J Cardiol 1999 Nov 15; 84(10): 1278–9

    Google Scholar 

  14. Turnheim K, Krivanek P, Oberbauer R, et al. Pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of allopurinol in elderly and young subjects. Br J Clin Pharmacol 1991; 48(4): 501–9

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Pelkonen O, Boobis AR, Gundert-Remy U, et al. In vitro prediction of gastrointestinal absorption and bioavailability: an experts meeting report. Eur J Clin Pharmacol 2001; 57: 621–9

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Paine MF, Shen DD, Kunze KL, et al. First-pass metabolism of midazolam by the human intestine. Clin Pharmacol Ther 1996; 60: 14–24

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Albert KS. Analytical issues in bioequivalency determinations: importance of metabolites in bioequivalence. In: McGilvery IJ, Dighe SV, French IW, et al., editors. Proceedings Bio International 89; 1989 Oct 1–4; Toronto: 96–8

    Google Scholar 

  18. Houston JB. Metabolites. In: McGilvery IJ, Dighe SV, French IW, et al., editors. Proceedings Bio International 89; 1989 Oct 1–4; Toronto: 99–100

    Google Scholar 

  19. Midha KK, McGilvery IJ, Hubbard JW, et al. Panelist presentation. In: McGilvery IJ, Dighe SV, French IW, et al., editors. Proceedings Bio International 89; 1989 Oct 1–4; Toronto: 101–6

    Google Scholar 

  20. Dighe SV, Patnaik RN. Need for metabolite analysis in bioequivalence studies. In: Blume HH, Midha KK, editors. BioInternational 92. Bad Homburg: Medpharm, 1993: 149–61

    Google Scholar 

  21. Tucker GT, Rostami A, Jackson PA, et al. Metabolite measurements in bioequivalence studies: theoretical considerations. In: Blume HH, Midha KK, editors. Bio-International 92. Bad Homburg: Medpharm, 1993: 163–70

    Google Scholar 

  22. McGilvery IJ, Ormsby E. Metabolite measurements in bioequivalence studies: examples and problems I. In: Blume HH, Midha KK, editors. Bio-International 92. Bad Homburg: Medpharm, 1993: 171–88

    Google Scholar 

  23. Balant LP, Gex-Fabry M. Metabolite measurements in bioequivalency studies: regulatory aspects. In: Blume HH, Midha KK, editors. Bio-International 92. Bad Homburg: Medpharm, 1993: 197–207

    Google Scholar 

  24. Blume HH, Midha KK. Report of consensus meeting: BioInternational 92, conference on bioavailability, bioequivalence and pharmacokinetic studies: session III. Eur J Pharm Sci 1993; 1: 165–70

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Blume HH, Midha KK. Bio-International 92, conference on bioavailability, bioequivalence and pharmacokinetic studies. J Pharm Sci 1993; 82: 186–1189

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Walter-Sack I, de Vries JX, Kreiner C, et al. Bioequivalence of allopurinol preparations: to be assessed by the parent drug or active metabolite? Clin Pharmacol 1993; 71: 240–6

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Midha KK, Hubbard JW, McKay G, et al. The role of metabolites in a bioequivalence study 1: loxapine, 7-hydroxyloxapine and 8-hydroxyloxapine. Int J Clin Pharmacol 1993; 31: 177–83

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Hutt V, Sauter K. Bioequivalence evaluation of the metabolites 1,2 and 1,3 glyceryl dinitrate of two different glyceryl trinitrate patches after usage in healthy volunteers. Arzneimittel Forschung 1994; 44: 1313–7

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Chen ML, Jackson AJ. Role of metabolites in bioequivalency assessment. In: Jackson AJ, editor. Generics and bioequivalence. Boca Raton (FL): CRC Press, 1994: 49–65

    Google Scholar 

  30. Blume HH, Midha KK. Report of consensus meeting: BioInternational 94, conference on bioavailability, bioequivalence and pharmacokinetic studies. Eur J Pharm Sci 1995; 3: 113–24

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. Chen ML, Jackson AJ. The role of metabolites in bioequivalency assessment: II. drugs with linear pharmacokinetics and first-pass effect. Pharmaceutical Res 1995; 12: 700–8

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. Ezan E, Ardouin T, Landes BD, et al. Bioequivalence study of alpha-dihydroergocryptine: utility of metabolite evaluation. Int J Clin Pharmacol Ther 1996; 34: 32–7

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  33. Mascher HJ, Kikuta C, Millendorfer A, et al. Pharmacokinetics and bioequivalence of the main metabolites of selegiline: desmethylselegiline, methamphetamine and amphetamine after oral administration of selegiline. Int J Clin Pharmacol Ther 1997; 35: 9–13

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  34. Vergin H, Mahr G, Metz R, et al. Analysis of metabolites: a new approach to bioequivalence studies of spironolactone formulations. Int J Clin Pharmacol Ther 1997; 35: 334–40

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  35. Rosenbaum SE, Lam J. Bioequivalence parameters of parent drug and its first-pass metabolite: comparative sensitivity to sources of pharmacokinetic variability. Drug Dev Ind Pharm 1997; 23: 337–44

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  36. Mahmood I. Assessment of metabolites in bioequivalence studies: should bioequivalence criteria be applied on the sum of parent compound and metabolite? Int J Clin Pharmacol Ther 1998; 36: 540–4

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  37. Rosenbaum SE. Effect of variability in hepatic clearance on the bioequivalence parameters of a drug and its metabolite: simulations using a pharmacostatistical model. Pharm Acta Helv 1998; 73: 135–44

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  38. Jackson AJ. The role of metabolites in bioequivalency assessment: III. highly variable drugs with linear kinetics and first-pass effect. Pharm Res 2000; 17: 1432–6

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  39. Committee for Proprietary Medicinal Products, The European Agency for the Evaluation of Medicinal Products. Note for guidance on the investigation of bioavailability and bioequivalence [online]. Available from URL: http://www.emea.eu.int/pdfs/human/ewp/140198en.pdf [Accessed 2004 Jun 30]

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank Larry Ouderkirk for editing the manuscript. The views expressed in this review are those of the authors and do not reflect official policy of the US FDA. No official support or endorsement by the US FDA is intended or should be inferred.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Division of Pharmaceutical Evaluation I, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, Office of Clinical Pharmacology and Biopharmaceutics, Mailstop HFD 860, Rockville, Maryland, 20852, USA

    Andre J. Jackson, Gabriel Robbie & Patrick Marroum

Authors
  1. Andre J. Jackson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Gabriel Robbie
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Patrick Marroum
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Andre J. Jackson.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Jackson, A.J., Robbie, G. & Marroum, P. Metabolites and Bioequivalence. Clin Pharmacokinet 43, 655–672 (2004). https://doi.org/10.2165/00003088-200443100-00002

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.2165/00003088-200443100-00002

Keywords

Search

Navigation