Literature DB >> 11996322

Biometrical evaluation of bioequivalence trials using a bootstrap individual direct curve comparison method.

E Zintzaras1, P Bouka, A Kowald.   

Abstract

Bioequivalence of two medicinal, or veterinary, products is established by comparing the mean of bioavailability measures, such as AUC and Cmax, following administration of the test (T) and reference (R) products. However, the use of these parameters has several drawbacks, e.g. they do not take into consideration the overall pharmacokinetic profile shape. Therefore, concerns have been raised regarding their appropriateness for assessment of bioequivalence. To overcome the limitations of these bioequivalence parameters, direct curve comparison metrics methods were recently proposed on an average basis. In this paper, an individual based direct curve comparison method for assessing bioequivalence is proposed. The bioequivalence of T and R in each subject is evaluated by a new curve comparison metrics delta. The metrics delta is the absolute sum of the difference between two curves. The significance of the metrics for each subject is assessed by bootstrapping. An overall bioequivalence of T and R may be considered if less than 25% of the subjects show statistically different profiles.

Mesh:

Year:  2002        PMID: 11996322     DOI: 10.1007/BF03190400

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Eur J Drug Metab Pharmacokinet        ISSN: 0378-7966            Impact factor:   2.441


  15 in total

1.  An individual bioequivalence criterion: regulatory considerations.

Authors:  M L Chen; R Patnaik; W W Hauck; D J Schuirmann; T Hyslop; R Williams
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  2000-10-30       Impact factor: 2.373

Review 2.  Individual bioequivalence revisited.

Authors:  M L Chen; L J Lesko
Journal:  Clin Pharmacokinet       Date:  2001       Impact factor: 6.447

3.  Novel direct curve comparison metrics for bioequivalence.

Authors:  J E Polli; A M McLean
Journal:  Pharm Res       Date:  2001-06       Impact factor: 4.200

Review 4.  Measures of exposure versus measures of rate and extent of absorption.

Authors:  M L Chen; L Lesko; R L Williams
Journal:  Clin Pharmacokinet       Date:  2001       Impact factor: 6.447

5.  Bioequivalence.

Authors:  A Rescigno
Journal:  Pharm Res       Date:  1992-07       Impact factor: 4.200

Review 6.  Types of bioequivalence and related statistical considerations.

Authors:  W W Hauck; S Anderson
Journal:  Int J Clin Pharmacol Ther Toxicol       Date:  1992-05

7.  In vitro dissolution profile comparison--statistics and analysis of the similarity factor, f2.

Authors:  V P Shah; Y Tsong; P Sathe; J P Liu
Journal:  Pharm Res       Date:  1998-06       Impact factor: 4.200

8.  Absorption rate vs. exposure: which is more useful for bioequivalence testing?

Authors:  T N Tozer; F Y Bois; W W Hauck; M L Chen; R L Williams
Journal:  Pharm Res       Date:  1996-03       Impact factor: 4.200

9.  Evaluation of direct curve comparison metrics applied to pharmacokinetic profiles and relative bioavailability and bioequivalence.

Authors:  S A Marston; J E Polli
Journal:  Pharm Res       Date:  1997-10       Impact factor: 4.200

10.  A comparison of the two one-sided tests procedure and the power approach for assessing the equivalence of average bioavailability.

Authors:  D J Schuirmann
Journal:  J Pharmacokinet Biopharm       Date:  1987-12
View more
  3 in total

1.  Estimating inestimable standard errors in population pharmacokinetic studies: the bootstrap with Winsorization.

Authors:  Ene I Ette; Leonard C Onyiah
Journal:  Eur J Drug Metab Pharmacokinet       Date:  2002 Jul-Sep       Impact factor: 2.441

2.  Statistical aspects of bioequivalence testing between two medicinal products.

Authors:  E Zintzaras
Journal:  Eur J Drug Metab Pharmacokinet       Date:  2005 Jan-Jun       Impact factor: 2.441

3.  A bioequivalence study of levothyroxine tablets versus an oral levothyroxine solution in healthy volunteers.

Authors:  N Yannovits; E Zintzaras; A Pouli; G Koukoulis; S Lyberi; E Savari; S Potamianos; F Triposkiadis; I Stefanidis; E Zartaloudis; A Benakis
Journal:  Eur J Drug Metab Pharmacokinet       Date:  2006 Apr-Jun       Impact factor: 2.441

  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.