Individual bioequivalence: what matters to the patient

Current procedures for assessing the bioequivalence of two formulations are based on the concept of average bioequivalence. That is, they assess whether the average responses between individuals on the two formulations are similar. We show first that average bioequivalence is not sufficient to assure that an individual patient could be expected to respond similarly to the two formulations. To have such reasonable assurance requires a different notion of bioequivalence; individual (or within-subject) bioequivalence. Second, we propose a simple statistical procedure for assessing individual bioequivalence. This decision rule, TIER (test of individual equivalence ratios) requires the specification of the minimum proportion of subjects in the applicable population for which the two formulations being tested must be bioequivalent (a regulatory decision). The TIER rule is summarized in terms of the minimum number of subjects with bioavailability ratios falling within the specified equivalence interval necessary to be able to claim bioequivalence for given sample size and type I error. We recommend that the corresponding lower bounds (one-sided confidence intervals) for the proportion of bioequivalent subjects be calculated.