Literature DB >> 6994991

Determining the probability of an important difference in bioavailability.

B E Rodda, R L Davis.   

Abstract

Bioavailability studies usually compare formulations of a drug under the premise of equal bioavailabilities. Analyses of such studies may be questioned when large differences exist, but are not statistically significant, or when small differences are found which do reach statistical significance. In either case, the question of clinical significance is not addressed and remains problematic regardless of the outcome. The important question is, "Given the results of the study, what is the probability that a clinically important difference exists?" To obviate dependence on statistical significance, we propose a methodology which permits computation of the probability that a clinically important difference in bioavailability exists between two products, regardless of the results of conventional tests of hypothesis. The methodology permits a strong statement which defines the likelihood of a meaningful difference, rather than the "nonstatement" of current approaches. The approach is illustrated by a study in which a 2% (nonsignificant) difference in bioavailability was observed. Using the proposed methodology the analysis concluded that the odds are about 5 to 1 against there being a 20% difference in bioavailability between the formulations.

Mesh:

Year:  1980        PMID: 6994991     DOI: 10.1038/clpt.1980.157

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Clin Pharmacol Ther        ISSN: 0009-9236            Impact factor:   6.875


  15 in total

1.  Comparative bioavailability study of two brands of prazosin-containing tablets in healthy volunteers.

Authors:  P J Guelen; T J Janssen; M H Lam; T B Vree; P S Exler
Journal:  Pharm Weekbl Sci       Date:  1990-10-19

2.  Spline functions in convolutional modeling of verapamil bioavailability and bioequivalence. II: study in healthy volunteers.

Authors:  J Popović; R Mitić; A Sabo; M Mikov; V Jakovljević; K Daković-Svajcer
Journal:  Eur J Drug Metab Pharmacokinet       Date:  2006 Apr-Jun       Impact factor: 2.441

Review 3.  Bioequivalence; its history, practice, and future.

Authors:  Kamal K Midha; Gordon McKay
Journal:  AAPS J       Date:  2009-10-06       Impact factor: 4.009

4.  Intra- and inter-subject variabilities of CGP 33101 after replicate single oral doses of two 200-mg tablets and 400-mg suspension.

Authors:  W K Cheung; F Kianifard; A Wong; J Mathieu; T Cook; V John; E Redalieu; K Chan
Journal:  Pharm Res       Date:  1995-12       Impact factor: 4.200

5.  The bioavailability of three altretamine formulations.

Authors:  E A Runhaar; J P Neijt; J J Holthuis; D de Vos
Journal:  Pharm Weekbl Sci       Date:  1989-12-15

6.  Group sequential extensions of a standard bioequivalence testing procedure.

Authors:  A L Gould
Journal:  J Pharmacokinet Biopharm       Date:  1995-02

7.  Absolute bioavailability of mianserin tablets and solution in healthy humans.

Authors:  C J Timmer; S Pourbaix; J P Desager; M Sclavons; C Harvengt
Journal:  Eur J Drug Metab Pharmacokinet       Date:  1985 Oct-Dec       Impact factor: 2.441

8.  Statistical analysis of bioavailability studies: parametric and nonparametric confidence intervals.

Authors:  V W Steinijans; E Diletti
Journal:  Eur J Clin Pharmacol       Date:  1983       Impact factor: 2.953

9.  The bioavailability of Tamoplex (tamoxifen). Part 3. A steady-state study in breast cancer patients.

Authors:  P H Slee; D De Vos; D Chapman; D Stevenson
Journal:  Pharm Weekbl Sci       Date:  1988-02-19

10.  Absence of a pharmacokinetic interaction between enalapril and frusemide.

Authors:  A M Van Hecken; R Verbesselt; A Buntinx; V J Cirillo; P J De Schepper
Journal:  Br J Clin Pharmacol       Date:  1987-01       Impact factor: 4.335

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.