Literature DB >> 17554610

Bioequivalence testing by statistical shape analysis.

Luis Marcelo Pereira1.   

Abstract

Bioequivalence testing has been traditionally centered in summary variables such as AUC, C (max) and t (max) which filter out the intrinsic information conveyed by discrete sequential concentration-time observations. Comparing entire concentration-time profiles between test and reference formulations for bioequivalence purposes provides stronger evidence about either their similarity or their discrepancy. The Kullback-Leibler information criterion (KLIC) may be computed for each concentration-time across all subjects between formulations of the same drug, with a standard crossover study design. It has been shown that if properly scaled it follow a chi-squared distribution and dependent p-values may be computed in order to construct a bioequivalence criterion. Extensive simulations and real data were used to compare it with the current standard procedures. This statistical shape analysis method may provide important clinical and regulatory advantages.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2007        PMID: 17554610     DOI: 10.1007/s10928-007-9055-3

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Pharmacokinet Pharmacodyn        ISSN: 1567-567X            Impact factor:   2.410


  31 in total

Review 1.  Clinical equivalence.

Authors:  D R Bristol
Journal:  J Biopharm Stat       Date:  1999-11       Impact factor: 1.051

2.  Kullback-Leibler divergence for evaluating bioequivalence.

Authors:  Vladimir Dragalin; Valerii Fedorov; Scott Patterson; Byron Jones
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  2003-03-30       Impact factor: 2.373

3.  Therapeutic equivalence: fallacies and falsification.

Authors:  Andrew D Garrett
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  2003-03-15       Impact factor: 2.373

4.  Tests for individual and population bioequivalence based on generalized p-values.

Authors:  Richard J McNally; Hari Iyer; Thomas Mathew
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  2003-01-15       Impact factor: 2.373

5.  What your statistician never told you about P-values.

Authors:  Jeffrey Blume; Jeffrey F Peipert
Journal:  J Am Assoc Gynecol Laparosc       Date:  2003-11

6.  Detection of outlying data in bioavailability/bioequivalence studies.

Authors:  J P Liu; C S Weng
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  1991-09       Impact factor: 2.373

7.  Design and analysis of intra-subject variability in cross-over experiments.

Authors:  V M Chinchilli; J D Esinhart
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  1996-08-15       Impact factor: 2.373

8.  Landmark methods for forms without landmarks: morphometrics of group differences in outline shape.

Authors:  F L Bookstein
Journal:  Med Image Anal       Date:  1997-04       Impact factor: 8.545

9.  Outlier detection in bioavailability/bioequivalence studies.

Authors:  S C Chow; S K Tse
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  1990-05       Impact factor: 2.373

10.  p values, hypothesis tests, and likelihood: implications for epidemiology of a neglected historical debate.

Authors:  S N Goodman
Journal:  Am J Epidemiol       Date:  1993-03-01       Impact factor: 4.897

View more
  3 in total

1.  When is a metric not a metric? Remarks on direct curve comparison in bioequivalence studies.

Authors:  Wojciech Jawień
Journal:  J Pharmacokinet Pharmacodyn       Date:  2009-06-21       Impact factor: 2.745

2.  Use of partial AUC (PAUC) to evaluate bioequivalence--a case study with complex absorption: methylphenidate.

Authors:  Jeanne Fourie Zirkelbach; Andre J Jackson; Yaning Wang; Donald J Schuirmann
Journal:  Pharm Res       Date:  2012-09-25       Impact factor: 4.200

3.  Trapezoid bioequivalence: A rational bioavailability evaluation approach on account of the pharmaceutical-driven balance of population average and variability.

Authors:  Sara Soufsaf; Fahima Nekka; Jun Li
Journal:  CPT Pharmacometrics Syst Pharmacol       Date:  2022-03-18
  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.