![[PDF]](/pb-assets/Icons/adobe-pdf-icon-1498649896243.png){kind=icon}
Abstract
Average bioequivalence tests are used in clinical trials to determine whether a generic drug has the same effect as an original drug in the population. For highly variable drugs whose intra-subject variances of direct drug effects are high, extra criteria are needed in bioequivalence studies. Currently used average bioequivalence tests for highly variable drugs recommended by the European Medicines Agency and the US Food and Drug Administration use sample estimators in the null hypotheses of interest. They cannot control the empirical type I error rate, so the consumer's risk is higher than the predetermined level. In this paper, we propose two new statistically sound methods that can control the empirical type I error rate without involving any sample estimators in the null hypotheses. In the proposed methods, we consider the average level of direct drug effects and the intra-subject variance of the direct drug effects. The first proposed method tests the latter parameter first to determine whether a product should be regarded as a highly variable drug, and then tests the former using corresponding bioequivalence limits. The second proposed method tests these two parameters simultaneously to capture the bioequivalence region. Extensive simulations are done to compare these methods. The simulation results show that the proposed methods have good performance on controlling the empirical type I error rate. The proposed methods are useful for pharmaceutical manufacturers and regulators.
References
| 1. | WHO. Guidance for organizations performing in vivo bioequivalence studies. WHO Technical Report Series No. 996, (Annex 9), 2016. Google Scholar |
| 2. | FDA et al. Guidance for industry: statistical approaches to establishing bioequivalence. Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, 2001. Google Scholar |
| 3. | Feng, C, Wang, H, Zhang, Y, et al. Generalized definition of the geometric mean of a non negative random variable. Commun Stat-Theory Meth 2017; 46: 3614–3620. Google Scholar | Crossref |
| 4. | Riegelman, S, Collier, P. The application of statistical moment theory to the evaluation of in vivo dissolution time and absorption time. J Pharmacokinetics Biopharmaceut 1980; 8: 509–534. Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline |
| 5. | Schuirmann, DJ . A comparison of the two one-sided tests procedure and the power approach for assessing the equivalence of average bioavailability. J Pharmacokinetics Biopharmaceut 1987; 15: 657–680. Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline |
| 6. | Davit, BM, Chen, ML, Conner, DP, et al. Implementation of a reference-scaled average bioequivalence approach for highly variable generic drug products by the us food and drug administration. AAPS J 2012; 14: 915–924. Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline |
| 7. | Kanfer I and Shargel L. Generic drug product development: international regulatory requirements for bioequivalence. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press, 2016. Google Scholar |
| 8. | Blume, HH, Midha, KK. Bio-international 92, conference on bioavailability, bioequivalence, and pharmacokinetic studies. J Pharmaceut Sci 1993; 82(11): 1186–1189. Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline |
| 9. | Labes, D, Schütz, H. Inflation of type i error in the evaluation of scaled average bioequivalence, and a method for its control. Pharmaceut Res 2016; 33: 2805–2814. Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline |
| 10. | Tothfalusi, L, Endrenyi, L. Limits for the scaled average bioequivalence of highly variable drugs and drug products. Pharmaceut Res 2003; 20: 382–389. Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline |
| 11. | Committee for Proprietary Medicinal Products (CPMP). Note for guidance on the investigation of bioavailability and bioequivalence, 2001, https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/documents/scientific-guideline/note-guidance-investigation-bioavailability-bioequivalence_en.pdf. Google Scholar |
| 12. | Howe, WG . Approximate confidence limits on the mean of x+y where x and y are two tabled independent random variables. J Am Stat Assoc 1974; 69: 789–794. Google Scholar | ISI |
| 13. | Zou, GY, Donner, A. Construction of confidence limits about effect measures: a general approach. Stat Med 2008; 27: 1693–1702. Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline | ISI |
| 14. | Muñoz, J, Alcaide, D, Ocaña, J. Consumer's risk in the ema and fda regulatory approaches for bioequivalence in highly variable drugs. Stat Med 2016; 35: 1933–1943. Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline |
| 15. | Karalis, V, Symillides, M, Macheras, P. Bioequivalence of highly variable drugs: a comparison of the newly proposed regulatory approaches by FDA and EMA. Pharmaceut Res 2012; 29: 1066–1077. Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline |
| 16. | Hauschke D. Bioequivalence and statistics in clinical pharmacology. Boca Raton, FL: Chapman & Hall/CRC, 2005. Google Scholar |
| 17. | Hauck, WW, Anderson, S. Measuring switchability and prescribability: when is average bioequivalence sufficient?. J Pharmacokinetics Biopharmaceut 1994; 22: 551–564. Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline |
| 18. | Schall, R, Luus, HG. On population and individual bioequivalence. Stat Med 1993; 12: 1109–1124. Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline | ISI |
| 19. | Shein-Chung Chow and Jen-Pei Liu. Design and analysis of bioavailability and bioequivalence studies. Amsterdam: CRC Press, 2008. Google Scholar |
