Loading…
Some Conceptual Issues in the Evaluation of Average, Population, and Individual Bioequivalence
New approaches to population bioequivalence (PBE) and individual bioequivalence (IBE) have been motivated by the limitations of average bioequivalence (ABE) to handle unequal variances and subject-by-formulation interaction. The criteria for PBE and IBE described in the Food and Drug Administration...
Saved in:
Published in: | Drug information journal 2001, Vol.35 (3), p.893-899 |
---|---|
Main Author: | |
Format: | Article |
Language: | English |
Subjects: | |
Citations: | Items that this one cites Items that cite this one |
Online Access: | Get full text |
Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
cited_by | cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c509t-7b1fea6430b96407daceab4aee3f18f09cba7267ed0813a8cf68211498d02aa13 |
---|---|
cites | cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c509t-7b1fea6430b96407daceab4aee3f18f09cba7267ed0813a8cf68211498d02aa13 |
container_end_page | 899 |
container_issue | 3 |
container_start_page | 893 |
container_title | Drug information journal |
container_volume | 35 |
creator | Steinijans, Volker W. |
description | New approaches to population bioequivalence (PBE) and individual bioequivalence (IBE) have been motivated by the limitations of average bioequivalence (ABE) to handle unequal variances and subject-by-formulation interaction. The criteria for PBE and IBE described in the Food and Drug Administration draft guidance employ aggregate criteria that combine information on differences in bioavailability between formulation means, and differences in bioavailability variation of formulations between and within subjects. Examples from replicate design studies have demonstrated that the trade-off in means offered by the scaled aggregate criterion may result in clinically unacceptable decisions in favor of IBE, although ABE does not hold. Concerning the statistical methods, there are at least three conceptual issues that are still unresolved. First, aggregate hypotheses on the logarithmic scale have no obvious translation into the original scale. Second, scaling corresponds to a modification of the bioequivalence acceptance limits, and is an issue independent of IBE, PBE, and ABE, but is handled differently for IBE and PBE than for ABE. Third, the proposed criteria do not mandate hierarchical testing (first means, then variances, lastly subject-by-formulation interaction). If, despite major clinical reservations, IBE is further pursued, statistical research should focus on disaggregate criteria that allow exact stepwise procedures for evaluating untransformed parameters. |
doi_str_mv | 10.1177/009286150103500328 |
format | article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_journals_275004424</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sage_id>10.1177_009286150103500328</sage_id><sourcerecordid>2450780194</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c509t-7b1fea6430b96407daceab4aee3f18f09cba7267ed0813a8cf68211498d02aa13</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9kEFLw0AQhYMoWGr_gKdFPTZ2drPJbo61VC0UFNSrYbLZ1ZQ0m2aTgv_era14EJ3LDMP33gwvCM4pXFMqxAQgZTKhMVCIYoCIyaNgwGgiQy6BH3_PIoXTYOTcCnylMhZMDoLXJ7vWZGZrpZuux4osnOu1I2VNundN5luseuxKWxNryHSrW3zTY_Jom776Wo8J1gVZ1EW5LYud_qa0etOXXqe951lwYrByenTow-Dldv48uw-XD3eL2XQZqhjSLhQ5NRoTHkGeJhxEgUpjzlHryFBpIFU5CpYIXYCkEUplEsko5aksgCHSaBhc7H2b1m78_122sn1b-5MZEz4Tzhn30OWfEI9BSKDpjmJ7SrXWuVabrGnLNbYfGYVsl3f2O28vujpYo1NYmRZrVbofJQUqWOyxyR5zPsaf6_8YfwLNBYtA</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>275004424</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Some Conceptual Issues in the Evaluation of Average, Population, and Individual Bioequivalence</title><source>Springer Link</source><creator>Steinijans, Volker W.</creator><creatorcontrib>Steinijans, Volker W.</creatorcontrib><description>New approaches to population bioequivalence (PBE) and individual bioequivalence (IBE) have been motivated by the limitations of average bioequivalence (ABE) to handle unequal variances and subject-by-formulation interaction. The criteria for PBE and IBE described in the Food and Drug Administration draft guidance employ aggregate criteria that combine information on differences in bioavailability between formulation means, and differences in bioavailability variation of formulations between and within subjects. Examples from replicate design studies have demonstrated that the trade-off in means offered by the scaled aggregate criterion may result in clinically unacceptable decisions in favor of IBE, although ABE does not hold. Concerning the statistical methods, there are at least three conceptual issues that are still unresolved. First, aggregate hypotheses on the logarithmic scale have no obvious translation into the original scale. Second, scaling corresponds to a modification of the bioequivalence acceptance limits, and is an issue independent of IBE, PBE, and ABE, but is handled differently for IBE and PBE than for ABE. Third, the proposed criteria do not mandate hierarchical testing (first means, then variances, lastly subject-by-formulation interaction). If, despite major clinical reservations, IBE is further pursued, statistical research should focus on disaggregate criteria that allow exact stepwise procedures for evaluating untransformed parameters.</description><identifier>ISSN: 2168-4790</identifier><identifier>ISSN: 0092-8615</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 2168-4804</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 2164-9200</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1177/009286150103500328</identifier><identifier>CODEN: DGIJB9</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Los Angeles, CA: SAGE Publications</publisher><subject>Bioavailability ; Bioequivalence ; Biological and medical sciences ; Criteria ; General pharmacology ; Medical sciences ; Pharmacokinetics. Pharmacogenetics. Drug-receptor interactions ; Pharmacology. Drug treatments ; Statistical methods ; Statistics</subject><ispartof>Drug information journal, 2001, Vol.35 (3), p.893-899</ispartof><rights>2001 Drug Information Association</rights><rights>2001 INIST-CNRS</rights><rights>Drug Information Association, Inc 2001.</rights><rights>Copyright Drug Information Association Jul-Sep 2001</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c509t-7b1fea6430b96407daceab4aee3f18f09cba7267ed0813a8cf68211498d02aa13</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c509t-7b1fea6430b96407daceab4aee3f18f09cba7267ed0813a8cf68211498d02aa13</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>309,310,314,780,784,4024,4050,4051,25140,27923,27924,27925</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttp://pascal-francis.inist.fr/vibad/index.php?action=getRecordDetail&idt=1101725$$DView record in Pascal Francis$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Steinijans, Volker W.</creatorcontrib><title>Some Conceptual Issues in the Evaluation of Average, Population, and Individual Bioequivalence</title><title>Drug information journal</title><description>New approaches to population bioequivalence (PBE) and individual bioequivalence (IBE) have been motivated by the limitations of average bioequivalence (ABE) to handle unequal variances and subject-by-formulation interaction. The criteria for PBE and IBE described in the Food and Drug Administration draft guidance employ aggregate criteria that combine information on differences in bioavailability between formulation means, and differences in bioavailability variation of formulations between and within subjects. Examples from replicate design studies have demonstrated that the trade-off in means offered by the scaled aggregate criterion may result in clinically unacceptable decisions in favor of IBE, although ABE does not hold. Concerning the statistical methods, there are at least three conceptual issues that are still unresolved. First, aggregate hypotheses on the logarithmic scale have no obvious translation into the original scale. Second, scaling corresponds to a modification of the bioequivalence acceptance limits, and is an issue independent of IBE, PBE, and ABE, but is handled differently for IBE and PBE than for ABE. Third, the proposed criteria do not mandate hierarchical testing (first means, then variances, lastly subject-by-formulation interaction). If, despite major clinical reservations, IBE is further pursued, statistical research should focus on disaggregate criteria that allow exact stepwise procedures for evaluating untransformed parameters.</description><subject>Bioavailability</subject><subject>Bioequivalence</subject><subject>Biological and medical sciences</subject><subject>Criteria</subject><subject>General pharmacology</subject><subject>Medical sciences</subject><subject>Pharmacokinetics. Pharmacogenetics. Drug-receptor interactions</subject><subject>Pharmacology. Drug treatments</subject><subject>Statistical methods</subject><subject>Statistics</subject><issn>2168-4790</issn><issn>0092-8615</issn><issn>2168-4804</issn><issn>2164-9200</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2001</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNp9kEFLw0AQhYMoWGr_gKdFPTZ2drPJbo61VC0UFNSrYbLZ1ZQ0m2aTgv_era14EJ3LDMP33gwvCM4pXFMqxAQgZTKhMVCIYoCIyaNgwGgiQy6BH3_PIoXTYOTcCnylMhZMDoLXJ7vWZGZrpZuux4osnOu1I2VNundN5luseuxKWxNryHSrW3zTY_Jom776Wo8J1gVZ1EW5LYud_qa0etOXXqe951lwYrByenTow-Dldv48uw-XD3eL2XQZqhjSLhQ5NRoTHkGeJhxEgUpjzlHryFBpIFU5CpYIXYCkEUplEsko5aksgCHSaBhc7H2b1m78_122sn1b-5MZEz4Tzhn30OWfEI9BSKDpjmJ7SrXWuVabrGnLNbYfGYVsl3f2O28vujpYo1NYmRZrVbofJQUqWOyxyR5zPsaf6_8YfwLNBYtA</recordid><startdate>2001</startdate><enddate>2001</enddate><creator>Steinijans, Volker W.</creator><general>SAGE Publications</general><general>Pergamon Press</general><general>Springer Nature B.V</general><scope>IQODW</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7U7</scope><scope>C1K</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>NAPCQ</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7RV</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88I</scope><scope>8AF</scope><scope>8AO</scope><scope>8FE</scope><scope>8FH</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>8G5</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BBNVY</scope><scope>BEC</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BHPHI</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>GUQSH</scope><scope>HCIFZ</scope><scope>KB0</scope><scope>LK8</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>M2O</scope><scope>M2P</scope><scope>M7P</scope><scope>MBDVC</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>Q9U</scope><scope>S0X</scope></search><sort><creationdate>2001</creationdate><title>Some Conceptual Issues in the Evaluation of Average, Population, and Individual Bioequivalence</title><author>Steinijans, Volker W.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c509t-7b1fea6430b96407daceab4aee3f18f09cba7267ed0813a8cf68211498d02aa13</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2001</creationdate><topic>Bioavailability</topic><topic>Bioequivalence</topic><topic>Biological and medical sciences</topic><topic>Criteria</topic><topic>General pharmacology</topic><topic>Medical sciences</topic><topic>Pharmacokinetics. Pharmacogenetics. Drug-receptor interactions</topic><topic>Pharmacology. Drug treatments</topic><topic>Statistical methods</topic><topic>Statistics</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Steinijans, Volker W.</creatorcontrib><collection>Pascal-Francis</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Toxicology Abstracts</collection><collection>Environmental Sciences and Pollution Management</collection><collection>ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Premium</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>ProQuest Nursing & Allied Health Database</collection><collection>ProQuest Health and Medical</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Science Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>STEM Database</collection><collection>ProQuest Pharma Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest SciTech Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Research Library (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>eLibrary</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>ProQuest Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>Research Library Prep</collection><collection>SciTech Premium Collection</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest research library</collection><collection>ProQuest Science Journals</collection><collection>ProQuest Biological Science Journals</collection><collection>Research Library (Corporate)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Basic</collection><collection>SIRS Editorial</collection><jtitle>Drug information journal</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Steinijans, Volker W.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Some Conceptual Issues in the Evaluation of Average, Population, and Individual Bioequivalence</atitle><jtitle>Drug information journal</jtitle><date>2001</date><risdate>2001</risdate><volume>35</volume><issue>3</issue><spage>893</spage><epage>899</epage><pages>893-899</pages><issn>2168-4790</issn><issn>0092-8615</issn><eissn>2168-4804</eissn><eissn>2164-9200</eissn><coden>DGIJB9</coden><abstract>New approaches to population bioequivalence (PBE) and individual bioequivalence (IBE) have been motivated by the limitations of average bioequivalence (ABE) to handle unequal variances and subject-by-formulation interaction. The criteria for PBE and IBE described in the Food and Drug Administration draft guidance employ aggregate criteria that combine information on differences in bioavailability between formulation means, and differences in bioavailability variation of formulations between and within subjects. Examples from replicate design studies have demonstrated that the trade-off in means offered by the scaled aggregate criterion may result in clinically unacceptable decisions in favor of IBE, although ABE does not hold. Concerning the statistical methods, there are at least three conceptual issues that are still unresolved. First, aggregate hypotheses on the logarithmic scale have no obvious translation into the original scale. Second, scaling corresponds to a modification of the bioequivalence acceptance limits, and is an issue independent of IBE, PBE, and ABE, but is handled differently for IBE and PBE than for ABE. Third, the proposed criteria do not mandate hierarchical testing (first means, then variances, lastly subject-by-formulation interaction). If, despite major clinical reservations, IBE is further pursued, statistical research should focus on disaggregate criteria that allow exact stepwise procedures for evaluating untransformed parameters.</abstract><cop>Los Angeles, CA</cop><pub>SAGE Publications</pub><doi>10.1177/009286150103500328</doi><tpages>7</tpages></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 2168-4790 |
ispartof | Drug information journal, 2001, Vol.35 (3), p.893-899 |
issn | 2168-4790 0092-8615 2168-4804 2164-9200 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_proquest_journals_275004424 |
source | Springer Link |
subjects | Bioavailability Bioequivalence Biological and medical sciences Criteria General pharmacology Medical sciences Pharmacokinetics. Pharmacogenetics. Drug-receptor interactions Pharmacology. Drug treatments Statistical methods Statistics |
title | Some Conceptual Issues in the Evaluation of Average, Population, and Individual Bioequivalence |
url | http://sfxeu10.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/loughborough?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-01T14%3A05%3A34IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Some%20Conceptual%20Issues%20in%20the%20Evaluation%20of%20Average,%20Population,%20and%20Individual%20Bioequivalence&rft.jtitle=Drug%20information%20journal&rft.au=Steinijans,%20Volker%20W.&rft.date=2001&rft.volume=35&rft.issue=3&rft.spage=893&rft.epage=899&rft.pages=893-899&rft.issn=2168-4790&rft.eissn=2168-4804&rft.coden=DGIJB9&rft_id=info:doi/10.1177/009286150103500328&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E2450780194%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Cgrp_id%3Ecdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c509t-7b1fea6430b96407daceab4aee3f18f09cba7267ed0813a8cf68211498d02aa13%3C/grp_id%3E%3Coa%3E%3C/oa%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=275004424&rft_id=info:pmid/&rft_sage_id=10.1177_009286150103500328&rfr_iscdi=true |